project, programme and portfolio management trends … · 1101 pennsylvania ave. nw, suite 600...

1101 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Suite 600 Washington, DC 20004

P 202.756.2971 F 866.808.6585 www.hanoverresearch.com

MARKET EVALUATION SURVEYING DATA ANALYSIS BENCHMARKING INNOVATIVE PRACTICES LITERATURE REVIEW

Project, Programme and Portfolio Management Trends in Higher Education

In the following report, The Hanover Research Council surveys the project, programme, and portfolio management methodologies employed by a sample set of eleven Australian universities. This report presents common and unique practices concerning project lifecycle, documentation, and governance. In order to supplement this information, a survey was administered to Australian universities to examine the impact of project methodologies on project success – the findings are incorporated into our analysis. Finally, this report concludes with a discussion of best practices for adopting a project management methodology, particularly with regard to agile-method integration and a summary of key points from the research.

2

ACADEMY ADMINISTRATION PRACTICE

© 2009 The Hanover Research Council – Academy Administration Practice

DECEMBER 2009

Overview

In this report, Hanover examines the project, portfolio, and programme management methodologies employed by several Australian university project offices. Henceforth in this report and in order to make our terminology more consistent, we will use the phrase “project management” to describe the management of project, portfolios, and programmes, thus following the example of the majority of institutions we examined. We will also refer to methodologies, frameworks and guidelines as “methodologies”. We begin this report by presenting project lifecycles established by each institution’s project office. These lifecycles, which typically comprise four or five distinct project stages, are organized by project management methodology. Among the eleven institutions examined, PRINCE2 and PMBoK are the most common project management methodologies utilized by university project offices, and propose similar stages along the project management lifecycle. In the next section, we identify, compare, and contrast the most common project documents required by universities at each lifecycle stage. We also present unique practices used by one or more universities at each lifecycle stage. To further facilitate the comparison of methodology formality across the universities selected, we aggregate the documentation required by each institution at the initiation, planning, execution, and closure stages. We continue by presenting project management governance practices among the eleven institutions, highlighting common practices regarding stakeholders, workflow processes, and project types. Then, best practices for adopting a project management methodology are provided, with a focus on the integration of agile management methods. This section includes the results of a survey administered by Hanover in an effort to evaluate the impact of project management methodology on project success or failure. Finally, the report concludes with a summary of key findings. Research Methodology In order to ascertain project management trends at Australian institutions of higher education, the practices of eleven Australian institutions’ project offices were reviewed. The universities were initially chosen based on the criterion of academic excellence, as reflected by high university rankings, under the assumption that they are good candidates to serve as models for effective project management practices. The institutions initially selected are the top universities in Australia, according to the Times Higher Education “World University Rankings 2008” report.1 We then modified our list, aiming to identify similarly-sized universities as XYZ, as well as

1 “World University Rankings 2008.” Times Higher Education. October 2008. www.timeshighereducation.co.uk

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/

3



DECEMBER 2009

institutions whose project offices made information related to project management readily available. The institutions that matched these criteria are listed below:

University of Sydney

University of Queensland

Monash University

Macquarie University

Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (RMIT)

University of Canberra

Ballarat University

Southern Cross University

University of Western Sydney

University of Tasmania

La Trobe University In an effort to examine project management methodologies for the institutions selected, we focused on online resources affiliated with university project offices. While most universities make their project office information publicly available, a number of institutions have either removed this information or made it inaccessible by requiring staff log-ins. Fortunately, however, we were able to access some of the desired information through various internet archive and “cached” web browser functionalities. While it is important to note that the cached/archived webpage information does not comprise the most recently available data on the institutions’ project management methodologies, it does provide us with relatively recent data that, supplemented by the current data on publicly available sites, provides for a thorough examination of the governance and formality levels of the various project management methodologies. In our analysis, we also summarize the results of a survey administered by Hanover regarding the impact of project management methodologies on project success. The survey aimed at identifying and understanding the following:

Project management methodologies employed by university project offices

The impact of project management methodologies on project success and failure

The strengths and weaknesses of project management methodologies

The perception and implementation of agile methods

While project management contacts at 22 Australian universities were invited to participate in our survey, respondents from the following four institutions provided feedback:

Monash University

Flinders University

4



DECEMBER 2009


University of Western Australia To conclude this report, we present best practices for adopting project management methodologies drawn from our literature review, with a focus on agile-method integration.

5



DECEMBER 2009

Project Lifecycles

The Australian universities that we examined generally employ one of two project management methodologies:

PRINCE2: Developed by the U.K.’s Office of Government Commerce, PRINCE2 (PRojects IN Controlled Environments) is “designed to provide a framework covering the wide variety of disciplines and activities required within a project.”2 This type of project management methodology is employed by:

o University of Canberra o University of Sydney o La Trobe University o Macquarie University o University of Tasmania

PMBoK: (a guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge), published by the Project Management Institute, “offers a set of processes, generally recognized as good practice, which delivers results across industries and organization.”3 This type of project management methodology is employed by:

o RMIT o Southern Cross University o University of Ballarat o University of Queensland

Apart from these two primary methodologies, Monash University uses Thomsett’s project management system as a guideline, while the University of Western Sydney does not explicitly state its methodology. Outside the U.K., PRINCE2 has a “strong presence in Europe, Australia, and other typically English-speaking countries outside North America,” while PMBoK is the leading North American framework.4 Using the data available from these institutions, we divide our brief profiles of project management lifecycles below into three groups: PRINCE2-based methodologies, PMBoK-based methodologies, and a third category for Monash University and University of Western Sydney. Project management methodologies for the eleven universities examined generally designate four or five stage project lifecycles. While staging terminology differs among the universities examined, project lifecycles typically comprise initiation, planning, execution, and closure phases. The

2 “PRINCE2.” Office of Government Commerce. http://www.ogc.gov.uk/methods_prince_2.asp 3 “A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge.” Project Management Institute. http://www.pmi.org/Marketplace/Pages/ProductDetail.aspx?GMProduct=00100035801 4 "Comparing PRINCE2 and Project ManagementBOK - 3 Perspectives." PMCrunch Blog. http://pmcrunch.com/?s=comparing+PRINCE

http://www.pmi.org/Marketplace/Pages/ProductDetail.aspx?GMProduct=00100035801

http://pmcrunch.com/?s=comparing+PRINCE%20%20

6



DECEMBER 2009

next section of this report goes into the commonalities and unique elements of each of these four general project lifecycle stages. The University of Tasmania’s Project Office states that it bases its methodology on PRINCE2, making no mention of its project lifecycle stages.

PRINCE2-based methodologies:

Canberra University

Project Startup

Project Initiation

Project Planning

Project Execution

Project Closure


Start Up Phase

Initial Investigation Phase

Definition & Confirmation Phase

Development, Implementation & Validation Phase

Close Phase

La Trobe University

Defining

Initiating

Executing

Closing


Start-up

Initiation

Control & Manage

Closure

PMBoK-based Methodologies:

RMIT

Project Initiation

Project Planning

Project Execution

Project Tracking

Project Closure


Project Initiation

Project Planning

Project Executing

Project Controlling

Project Closing


Project Initiation

Project Execution

Project Closure

University of Ballarat

Project Initiation

Project Planning

Project Implementation

Project Completion

Other Methodologies:

Monash University (Thomsett)

Project Planning

Project Execution

Project Conclusion

University of Western Sydney (unknown)

Initiating

Planning

Executing

Controlling

Closing

7



DECEMBER 2009

Project Formality

Interestingly, project management methodology does not seem to significantly determine the level of formality throughout the project lifecycle; rather, there appears to be a high degree of formality in the methodologies overall. Instead, the variance seems to occur in the degree to which formal project management documentation is required at the universities, although documentation requirements tend to be most prevalent at the planning stages. This may be due, in part, to the fact that many of the institutions exhibit a certain degree of customization in their project management methodologies. Stage One: Initiation Documentation Universities employ a variety of early-stage documents as part of their project management methodologies, all of which are used to define the project and justify its necessity. Some common early stage documents include:

Project Brief

Project Request

Project Notification

Project Scope

Project Proposal

Business Case

Macquarie University, La Trobe University, the University of Ballarat, the University of Tasmania, and the University of Queensland require a project brief, which typically serves to initiate the project lifecycle. At La Trobe University, the project brief develops directly out of the business case, which justifies “the undertaking of a project based on the estimated cost of development and implementation against the risks” and potential benefits.”5 La Trobe University, RMIT, and the University of Tasmania also require the completion of a project initiation document, which typically expands upon the project brief. At the University of Tasmania and La Trobe University, a project stage plan is a major component of the project initiation document. Canberra University and the University of Sydney require that a project request form be completed at the start of the project lifecycle. Similarly, Monash University and Macquarie University use project concept and project idea forms, respectively, as start-up documents. At Macquarie University, most projects are planned “well in advance – usually as the result of IT Annual Planning for the

5 "Project Brief." La Trobe Project Management Office. http://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?q=&d=4610887953285788&mkt=en-US&setlang=en-US&w=1bb687a5,24537545

http://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?q=&d=4610887953285788&mkt=en-US&setlang=en-US&w=1bb687a5,24537545

8



DECEMBER 2009

university.”6 The University of Ballarat’s project notification template serves the same purpose as a Project Request form. The University of Western Sydney and Macquarie University both request the completion of an early stage project scope. At the University of Western Sydney, the project scope is the “most important document associated with any project,” as it should contain enough high-level detail to “enable stakeholders to understand” the project and elicit their “buy-in.”7 The project scope generally must include:

A statement of purpose,

The background of the project, including any changes to the external/internal environment that have necessitated change,

The objectives of the project,

Key stakeholders and “other players,”

The University’s organizational and customer requirements for the project,

The approach of the project,

The timeframe of the project and any milestones within each stage,

Items that are included and excluded in the project, including any deliverables,

Critical factors to the success of the project,

Assumptions necessary to further clarify the project,

List of known constraints,

Description of the existence of related projects,

Risks involved in the project, and

Approval from the project sponsor and project manager. Similarly, Southern Cross University, Canberra University, and the University of Ballarat provide project proposal templates. Canberra University's full project proposal develops out of the project request and completes the start-up phase. At the University of Ballarat, the project proposal is “the main document required to initiate a project” and includes a project specifications request and, if necessary, a feasibility study request.8 The items required within a project proposal appear to be generally similar to those required in the project scope, with the one major difference being that the proposals are more likely to require an estimation of the costs of the project and the identification of funding sources. The majority of universities require a business case. According to the University of Western Sydney, this document “explains what the benefits to the business will be if the project gets the go ahead.”9

6 “Project Communication.” Macquarie University. http://www.its.mq.edu.au/projects/project_communication.html 7 Ibid. 8 “Full Project Proposal.” Enterprise Project Management Office. http://www.canberra.edu.au/icts/archive/Full-Project-Proposal-May-2009.doc 9 “Initiating Stage.” University of Western Sydney. http://www.uws.edu.au/special_projects/special_projects_unit/project_management_methodology/initiating_stage

9



DECEMBER 2009

Initiation Documentation – Unique Practices Canberra University, Macquarie University, and La Trobe University implement pre-initiation “start-up” or “definition” stages, while Monash University actually omits its initiation stage. Somewhat differently, the University of Western Sydney uses a project initiation checklist to “allow Project managers to systematically address each [project] element” and to provide a foundation for project scope development. The checklist addresses elements such as:10

Project constraints,

Risk and issues,

Scope,

Business case, and

An action assignment log. Stage Two: Planning Documentation Planning documents encompass a wide variety of forms and templates, and most often relate to such elements as:

Cost,

Quality,

Change management,

Communication,

Risk, and

Task assignment. Canberra University, the University of Tasmania, Southern Cross University, and the University of Ballarat require project managers to complete a project plan or charter that includes many of the elements listed above. The University of Western Sydney notes that the difference between the project plan and the project scope is that: “whilst the scope provides the high level details, the plan provides full details including history and background information as well as clearly defining all risks, inclusions, deliverables and exclusions of the project.”11 At the University of Ballarat and Southern Cross University, the project plan comprises the bulk of planning documents, such as a risk management plan, a communication plan, a work breakdown structure, a quality plan, and a change

10 Ibid. 11“Initiating Stage.” University of Western Sydney. http://www.uws.edu.au/special_projects/special_projects_unit/project_management_methodology/initiating_stage

http://www.uws.edu.au/special_projects/special_projects_unit/project_management_methodology/initiating_stage

10



DECEMBER 2009

management plan. Approval of the project plan at the University of Ballarat results in the “full allocation of funds” requested.12 Similarly, for the University of Western Sydney and RMIT, the project plan/charter serves as a primary planning stage document. At the University of Sydney, the initial project charter serves as a “stage gate,” or milestone, document that completes the Initial Investigation Phase. This charter, which “commits the client to the business benefits” of project delivery, outlines “timeframes, resources required, and the business case,” and is finalized at the end of the Development, Implementation & Validation phase.13 Communication plans are also prevalent planning stage documents that facilitate effective communication with all project stakeholders. Universities using these plans, including the University of Western Sydney, the University of Ballarat, La Trobe University, the University of Tasmania, Southern Cross University, and Monash University all provide templates for their completion. These plans often require that the audience, method of communication, and frequency of communication be outlined as part of the project planning. The University of Western Sydney, for instance, requires that the communication plan must include:14

Progress reporting to project team/steering committee,

Management reports,

Project announcements,

Meetings with the project team and the steering committee,

Informal information, and

Creation of a website (for major projects). Several universities require project managers to draft quality and risk plans. The University of Ballarat, Monash University, Southern Cross University, and RMIT require the completion of risk management plan forms, and Monash University provides short- and generic-risk assessment templates. These documents are often used to plan for all risk factors that were not previously eliminated in the planning process. Similarly, both the University of Tasmania and RMIT provide risk registers, and La Trobe University asks project managers to regularly complete risk and quality logs as part of the executing stage. The prevalence of these types of documents suggests that the identification of risks, probability of occurrence, and potential impact constitute important components of the formal planning process.15 The University of Ballarat, Monash University, and Southern Cross University also require quality management plans.

12 “Project Methodology Guide.” University of Ballarat Information Services. http://www.ballarat.edu.au/aasp/project_office/methodology/Project%20Methodology%20Guide%20V2.0.pdf , 10. 13 "Project Management Methodology: Lifecycle." University of Sydney Project Management Office. http://www.usyd.edu.au/ict/Project ManagementO/pmo/lifecycle.shtml 14 “Planning Stage.” University of Western Sydney. http://www.uws.edu.au/special_projects/special_projects_unit/project_management_methodology/planning_stage 15 “Project Management: Managing Risk.” Monash University. http://www.its.monash.edu.au/staff/projects/project-management/managing-risk.html

http://www.ballarat.edu.au/aasp/project_office/methodology/Project%20Methodology%20Guide%20V2.0.pdf

http://www.usyd.edu.au/ict/Project%20ManagementO/pmo/lifecycle.shtml

http://www.uws.edu.au/special_projects/special_projects_unit/project_management_methodology/planning_stage

http://www.its.monash.edu.au/staff/projects/project-management/managing-risk.html

11



DECEMBER 2009

Planning Documentation – Unique Practices Project managers at La Trobe University must create a team structure, which is “specifically designed to manage the project to its successful conclusion to meet the requirements defined in the project brief.”16 This includes the Project Board (which provides overall guidance), the Project Director (who is the main party responsible for the project), the Business Owner (who is responsible for specifying the needs of users of the final product), the Senior Service Provider (who represents the interests of those supplying the resources), and the Project Manager (who runs the project on a daily basis).17 The University of Western Sydney, the University of Ballarat, and Southern Cross University require Project Managers to construct a work breakdown structure in order to define and designate project tasks among stakeholders according to a specified timeframe. Similarly, the University of Tasmania and Monash University make use of task plan and task assignment agreement forms, respectively. Stage Three: Execution Documentation Execution stage documents are generally comprised of tracking and monitoring forms, such as status reports, logs, and schedules. All of the universities examined implement means of regularly reporting project status and changes. For example, Canberra University, the University of Ballarat, University of Western Sydney, Southern Cross University, the University of Tasmania, and RMIT require project managers to submit status reports, usually on a monthly basis. These status reports typically include updates on the project finances, recent activities, deliverables, planned activities, and a review of the associated risks.18 In addition to monthly status reports, University of Western Sydney mandates the submission of periodic project report forms, which allow for a more “detailed [discussion of] project progress.” These forms can be utilized by the “project officer to inform the project manager,” as well as by the “project manager to inform the project sponsor.”19 The University of Queensland, the University of Ballarat, and Southern Cross University provide project change request forms, which require that changes in scope, time, cost, quality, risk management, communications, or other factors

16 "Project Management Team." La Trobe Project Management Office. http://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?q=&d=4980182124925293&mkt=en-US&setlang=en-US&w=9b30be5b,69a02c85 17 Ibid. 18 “Project Methodology: Project Implementation: Project Status.” University of Ballarat. http://www.ballarat.edu.au/aasp/project_office/methodology/index.shtml 19 “Controlling Stage.” University of Western Sydney http://www.uws.edu.au/special_projects/special_projects_unit/project_management_methodology/controlling_stage

http://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?q=&d=4980182124925293&mkt=en-US&setlang=en-US&w=9b30be5b,69a02c85

http://www.ballarat.edu.au/aasp/project_office/methodology/index.shtml

http://www.uws.edu.au/special_projects/special_projects_unit/project_management_methodology/controlling_stage

12



DECEMBER 2009

be documented and justified.20 Canberra University requires project change requests to be made as part of its initiation stage. La Trobe University and the University of Tasmania both require the completion of a project change log. Institutions deal with issue, quality, and risk management at the execution stage in several ways. For example, The University of Western Sydney, La Trobe University and RMIT utilize an issues log or register, and La Trobe University requires the completion of both a quality and risk log. Execution Documentation – Unique Practices Monash University mandates the creation of an IT Continuity Plan that describes “the actions to be taken in the event of the service failing.”21 Several institutions have developed project support procedures. Monash University, for instance, requires a testing, implementation, and production support plan. The testing plan includes a list of all individual tests to be conducted and the expected results, and must be submitted before continuing with the implementation. The implementation plan is a “detailed schedule of all tasks, responsibilities, and sequence of processes that need to be performed when going live.”22 Finally, the production support plan outlines the support structures and procedures in place during the implementation period.23 Macquarie University requires an acceptance test plan and handover documentation. At Canberra University, a handover operations checklist is required, but at the closing stage. Finally, Southern Cross University, the University of Western Sydney, and the University of Sydney divide the execution stage into two phases: an executing phase and a tracking (or controlling) phase. Stage Four: Closing Documentation La Trobe University, Canberra University, the University of Ballarat, RMIT, Macquarie University, and Southern Cross University require final closure or completion reports. Similarly, La Trobe University’s project completion checklist consists of items pertaining to project closing or decommissioning, which is supplemented by an end project report that evaluates the degree to which a project meets the goals of the Project Initiation Document. 20 “Project Methodology: Project Implementation: Change Request.” University of Ballarat. http://www.ballarat.edu.au/aasp/project_office/methodology/index.shtml 21 "Project Management @ Monash." Monash University. http://www.its.monash.edu.au/staff/projects/project-management/downloads/pm-methodology.pdf, 15. 22 Ibid, 18. 23 Ibid, 19.


http://www.its.monash.edu.au/staff/projects/project-management/downloads/pm-methodology.pdf


13



DECEMBER 2009

RMIT mandates the completion of a customer acceptance document, and Monash University requires the creation of a closing stage service statement. The majority of universities require project implementation review or post-implementation review documentation. This type of review typically assesses project implementation some time after project handover. At Southern Cross University, this review is reserved for larger projects Closing Documentation – Unique Practices As part of its closure phase, the University of Queensland utilizes a maturity assessment form to “monitor the level of project management maturity” within various project teams.24 While RMIT does not provide for a maturity assessment form, it states that its project management framework is based on the Capability Maturity Model (CMM), in addition to the PMBoK. This model, comprising the six main processes of (1) requirements management, (2) configuration management, (3) project tracking, (4) quality assurance, (5) subcontractor management, and (6) configuration management, helps to determine the “overall maturity of an organization’s project management processes in terms of organizational commitment, ability to perform, defined processes, and measurement/verification capability.”25 Building on this arrangement, RMIT has developed a CMM-PMBoK cross-reference tool, mapping its Project Management Framework to both the PMBoK and the maturity model. This cross-reference allows project managers to identify "how the requirements of each model have been addressed" and "major gaps between the framework and the two models."26 RMIT and Monash University both document and measure stakeholder "contracts" through benefit realisation reviews. RMIT's business benefit realisation review occurs at the closing stage, while Monash University's benefits realisation plan begins at the planning stage but continues "long after the project has completed."27 These reviews translate the benefits outlined in the project’s business case to those benefits that have actually been achieved. Finally, Macquarie University, RMIT, and La Trobe University require project managers to furnish lessons learnt logs at the execution and closing stages. La Trobe University also provides an opportunity for project managers to create a list of

24“Procedure – Maturity Reviews.” University of Queensland. http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:V6_9ZTjVjtQJ:www.its.uq.edu.au/docs/Maturity_Reviews.doc+http://www.its.uq edu.au/docs/maturity_reviews.doc 25 "Project Management Framework: Project ManagementI & CMM Cross Reference." RMIT ITS Project Office. http://web.archive.org/web/20060902020821/mams.rmit.edu.au/n0gu5wk5c14bz.pdf , 4. 26 Ibid. 27 "Project Management @ Monash." Monash University. http://www.its.monash.edu.au/staff/projects/project-management/downloads/pm-methodology.pdf , 11.

http://web.archive.org/web/20060902020821/mams.rmit.edu.au/n0gu5wk5c14bz.pdf


14



DECEMBER 2009

follow-up action recommendations, which can be used to initiate a new business case or project mandate. In the table presented below, we aggregate the formal documentation used by each institution at the initiation, planning, execution, and closure stages. Documentation is incomplete where university project offices do not disclose their required project management templates and forms – these instances are denoted in the table below by “N/A.” As is evident, the planning and initiation documents required by each of the universities tend to be the most extensive. Additionally, many of the universities have unique closure documents, such as a follow-up recommendation action form, a customer acceptance form, a service statement, a project closure checklist, and a final maturity assessment. Project management entities are usually housed in the institutions’ information/communication technologies division, and in some cases isolated to a “project office” within that division. It is also worth noting that at the university divisions and project offices we examined, the project templates were generally provided as Microsoft Word documents, and a number of institutions noted Microsoft Project as a commonly used support tool. At least three institutions, the University of Tasmania, the University of Queensland and La Trobe University, manage project registries through Microsoft Sharepoint.

Formality of Project Management Documentation Institution –

Structural Arrangement of

Project Management Entity

Initiation Documents Planning Documents Execution

Documents Completion Documents

University of Canberra -

Housed in the Information Communication Technology

Office28

Project Change/Request

Full Project Proposal

Project Initiation Document

Project Plan

Project Schedule

Budget & Cost Tracking Spreadsheet

Project Management Tools

Risk Register

Project Change Form

Project Change Register

Issue Register

Project Status Report

Project Closure Report

Final Project Schedule

Final Budget & Cost Tracking Spreadsheet

Handover to Operations Checklist

Post Implementation Review Report

28 “Information Communication Technology.” University of Canberra. http://www.canberra.edu.au/icts

http://www.canberra.edu.au/icts

15



DECEMBER 2009

Institution – Structural

Arrangement of Project Management

Entity




- Housed in the Special

Projects Unit29

Business Case

Project Scope

Project Initiation Checklist

Project Charter

Project Plan

Statement Of Work

Communication Plan

Work Breakdown Structure

Periodic Project Report

Status Report

Issue & Change Management Log

N/A

University of Ballarat -

Housed in the Project Office30

Project Initiation

Project Notification Template

Project Proposal o Project

Specifications Request

o Feasibility Study Request

Project Registry

Communication Plan

Risk Management Plan

Project Charter

Initial Project Charter

Project Plan o Work

Breakdown Structure

o Risk Management Plan

o Quality Plan o Communication

Plan o Change

Management Plan (optional)

Project Implementation

Project Change

Project Status

Project Change Request

Project Complete Form

La Trobe University -

Housed in the Project Management Office within

the Information and Communications

Technology Division31

Business Case/Project Mandate

Project Brief

Project Initiation Document o Project Stage

Plan

Communication Plan

Project Team Structure

Risk, Issue, & Quality Logs

Project Change Log

Project Status

Post-Implementation Review

Lessons Learnt Report

End Project Report

Project Closure Checklist

Follow-Up Action Recommendations

29 “Project Management Methodology: Special Projects Unit.” University of Western Sydney. http://www.uws.edu.au/special_projects/special_projects_unit/project_management_methodology 30 “Home Page for Student and Learning Support Portfolio Project Office.” University of Ballarat. http://www.ballarat.edu.au/aasp/project_office/methodology/index.shtml 31 “About ICT – Information and Communications Technology.” La Trobe University. www.latrobe.edu.au/ict/about

http://www.uws.edu.au/special_projects/special_projects_unit/project_management_methodology


http://www.latrobe.edu.au/ict/about

16



DECEMBER 2009



Entity



University of Tasmania -

Housed in the Project Office32

Project Initiation

Document

Project Stage Plan

Project Brief

Project Execution Plan

Budget Plan

Task Plan

Timeline Plan

Risk Register

Communication Register

Issues Register

Test Plans

Project Schedule


Communication Plan

Project Change Log

N/A

RMIT -

Housed in the ITS Project Office in the Information

Technology Services Office33

Project Initiation Document

Business Case

Statement of Work

Project Charter Risk Management Plan Risk Register

Project Schedule


Action Log

Issues Register

Lessons Learnt Log

Variation Agreement

Project Time Sheet

Project Closure

Business Benefit Realisation Review

Customer Acceptance Form

Post Implementation Review

University of Sydney -

Housed in the Project Services Office in the

Information and Communication

Technologies Division34

Initial Project Charter/ Business Case

Project Request

Project Mandate

Risk Register

Project Schedule

Project Cost Estimates/Actuals

Support Plan

Final Project Charter

Post Implementation Review


- Housed in the Project

Management Office in the Information Technology

Services Division35

Project Brief

Project Charter/Plan

Team Workload Plan

ITS Business Case

Communication Plan (required for medium & high management level projects)

N/A

Project Cost Registry

Status Report Registry


Operational Handover Plan

Project Review

Maturity Assessment

32 “Project Office.” University of Tasmania. http://www.utas.edu.au/itr/projects/index.html 33 “Project Management Framework Process – Information Technology Services.” RMIT University. http://web.archive.org/web/20070918120910/www.rmit.edu.au/browse;ID=w89jrpf6p79s 34 “Information and Communications Technology.” The University of Sydney. http://www.usyd.edu.au/ict/ 35 “Information Technology Services – PMO Services.” The University of Queensland. http://www.its.uq.edu.au/index.html?page=39961&pid=24080

http://www.utas.edu.au/itr/projects/index.html

http://web.archive.org/web/20070918120910/www.rmit.edu.au/browse;ID=w89jrpf6p79s

http://www.usyd.edu.au/ict/

http://www.its.uq.edu.au/index.html?page=39961&pid=24080

17



DECEMBER 2009



Entity



Monash University -

Housed in the Information Technology Services

Division36

Project Concept

Benefits Realisation Plan

Quality Plan

Communications Plan

Issue Log

Risk Management Plan

Short Risk Assessment

Generic Risk Assessment

Task Assignment Agreement

ITS Communications Plan

IT Continuity Plan

Project Execution Plan

IT Continuity Plan

Training Plan

Implementation Plan

Testing Plan

Production Support Plan

Monthly Project Report

Project Costing

Service Statement

Post-Implementation Review

Issue Log


- Housed in the Project

Management Office in the Information and

Telecommunications Services Division37

Project Proposal

Project Plan o Risk

Management Plan

o Communication Plan

o Work Breakdown Structure

o Quality Plan



Project Completion Report

Post Implementation Review (For Larger Projects)

Macquarie University -

Housed in the IT Services Division38

Project Idea Form

Project Scope

Business Case

Project Brief

Quick Wins

Solution Design

Communication Plan

Acceptance Test Plan

Handover Documentation & Training

End Stage Report

Project Closure Declaration

Lessons Learnt Report

36 “Information Technology Services.” Monash University. http://www.its.monash.edu.au/ 37 “About the Project Management Office.” Information Technology and Telecommunications Services of the Southern Cross University. http://www.scu.edu.au/it/index.php/7/ 38 “IT Services.” Macquarie University. http://www.its.mq.edu.au/index.htm

http://www.its.monash.edu.au/

http://www.scu.edu.au/it/index.php/7/

http://www.its.mq.edu.au/index.htm

18



DECEMBER 2009

Project Governance

Stakeholders Most of the universities evaluated in this report describe various stakeholder roles in the project management process. A number of institutions identify the responsibilities for each key stakeholder, and Southern Cross University, La Trobe University, and the University of Ballarat actually define the proficiencies required for each role. Both Southern Cross University and the University of Ballarat state which stakeholders are responsible for submitting or approving key documents and milestones, such as project staging, termination, and halt points. The similarities among the primary stakeholders in the universities’ project management methodologies suggest a relatively strict and well-established level of governance. The most common stakeholder roles and groups appear to be:

Project Team: Often comprised of a variety of individuals and stakeholders

Project Manager: Usually responsible for the daily operations of the project, but still reports to higher-level managers

Project Sponsor: Often closely involved in project finances and scope management

Steering Committee: Provides guidance and direction throughout the project lifecycle

Unique Practices

La Trobe University delineates responsibilities for a senior service provider and a resources manager.

Monash University requires that an executive sponsor, rather than a project sponsor, facilitate large projects. In the case of large projects, "the Executive Sponsor would provide the financial support and overall direction to the project.”39

At the University of Western Sydney, the creation of a communication plan requires the support and collaboration of the internal communications manager at the project’s “embryonic stage.”

39 “Project Sponsorship.” Monash University. http://www.its.monash.edu.au/staff/projects/project management/sponsoring.html

19



DECEMBER 2009

Southern Cross University and the University of Ballarat specify responsibilities for individual members of project steering committees, including expert specialists and client leaders.

At the University of Ballarat, a project reference group must be assembled to “deal with operational issues for the project.”

Canberra University has an extra level of well-defined governance at the project level for two committees: the CPAB (Change and Project Advisory Group) and ITAG (IT Advisory Group). Canberra University’s Enterprise Portfolio Management Office provides project summary information for the CPAB, and the ITAG “reviews the ICT project portfolio on a regular basis.”40

Workflow Framework The use of project workflow documents within many of the universities profiled in this report, including Southern Cross University, the University of Ballarat, the University of Queensland, and the University of Tasmania, suggests a high degree of structure in the project management governance mechanisms. These workflow diagrams typically capture the interplay of document delivery, lifecycle stages, and approval authorities. For instance, the University of Sydney’s Project Governance places top authority at the level of Chief Operating Officer, which then filters down to the Chief Information Officer, the Director of Project Services and the Sponsor, and then finally to the Project Manager, Project Team, and Project Board Chair. Placed at the bottom of this governance hierarchy are technical reference groups and user reference groups.41 Southern Cross University provides a project prioritisation flowchart that details the workflow for both supported and unsupported projects. Additionally, the University of Ballarat and Southern Cross University make use of project approval flowcharts as part of their project management guidelines. In fact, the University of Ballarat procures separate approval workflow diagrams for different project types, including limited scope projects, standard-to-highly complex projects with known processes, and standard-to-highly complex projects with unknown processes. Similarly, the University of Tasmania and the University of Queensland implement a process quality workflow and project management process flowchart, respectively. While La Trobe University does not provide a visual flowchart, it delineates a set of governance processes, in addition to its “core” processes, which comprise the following stages: directing, controlling, planning, and business case review.

40 "Roles and Responsibilities." University of Canberra. http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:a4aJGmsRVd4J:www.canberra.edu.au/icts/pmo/pm-uc/roles-responsibilities 41 “Project Management Methodology – Project Services.” The University of Sydney. http://www.usyd.edu.au/ict/PMO/pmo/governance.shtml

http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:a4aJGmsRVd4J:www.canberra.edu.au/icts/pmo/pm-uc/roles-responsibilities

http://www.usyd.edu.au/ict/PMO/pmo/governance.shtml

20



DECEMBER 2009

Project Types and Sizes A few of the universities reviewed by Hanover provide descriptions of their classifications for various project types and sizes, and the corresponding levels of documentation and methodologies required. These are presented below. Canberra University “Standard” document templates exist for large or very large projects, and “lite” templates can be used for small or medium projects. University of Queensland Projects are classified and prioritized according to the level of management oversight. These management levels determine a project’s document delivery method, the degree of stakeholder input, and the frequency of status reports. For instance, while high management-level projects require a steering committee to regularly meet and document their meeting minutes, low management-level projects just "appear as a fixed item on the relevant operational team or section meeting agenda."42 Monash University According to the university's IT Projects office, projects less than one month in duration are "generally considered too small to warrant the use of the project methodology."43 University of Ballarat At the University of Ballarat, project type determines the workflow approval process. Project types include: limited scope projects, standard-to-highly complex projects with known processes, and standard-to-highly complex projects with unknown processes. Major projects that require more than $250,000 must be assessed by a Post Implementation Review board. The university specifies the recommended board composition for both major and minor projects.

42 "Management Levels in ITS Projects." University of Queensland. http://www.its.uq.edu.au/index.html?page=79189&pid=3996 43 "Project Management @ Monash." Monash University. http://www.its.monash.edu.au/staff/projects/project-management/downloads/pm-methodology.pdf , 3.




21



DECEMBER 2009

Southern Cross University The university distinguishes between major and minor projects, as well as internal and external projects. Major projects "cost greater than $100,000" or are "deemed 'major' by the governing authority because of other factors, for example, strategic significance and/or risk."44 External projects typically require executive approval and additional funding. Major projects must be assessed by a Post Implementation Review board. The university specifies the recommended board composition for both major and minor projects. University of Tasmania Projects are classified as small, standard, or complex, based on factors such as cost, visibility, risk, duration, and the number of phases.

44 "Project Management Framework Guide." Southern Cross University Project Management http://www.scu.edu.au/it/index.php/7/


22



DECEMBER 2009

Best Practices

According to a 2006 survey approved by the Project Management Institute, project management methodology is “likely to be a primary factor in determining the success or failure of a project."45 Based on the survey results, respondents found the following factors to be the most important in assessing project failure:

Diminishing value added

Lack of adequate resources, such as "data, information, equipment/tools, skills, expertise, time, money") for the entire project length

Lack of "financial statistics of the project’s performance"46 In a 2008 survey investigating the perception of common project management tools and techniques among project managers, researchers at the University of Quebec at Montreal ranked the top 20 tools showing the greatest "potential to improve success”:

Database of lessons learned

Lessons learned/post-mortem

Database for cost estimating

Database of historical data

Database of risks

Organizational capacity analysis

Monitoring critical success factors

Risk management documents

Assignment of risk ownership

Communication plan

Contingency plans

Ranking of risks

Project Management software for multi-project resource management

Project Management software for multi-project scheduling

Requirements analysis

Project Management software for resource scheduling

Team building event

Responsibility assignment matrix

Project Management software for task scheduling

Scope statement47

45 Bejamin, R. 2006. "Project Success as a Function of Project Management Methodology." Master's Thesis, University of Hull. http://www.pmi.org/PDF/pp_robbenjamin.pdf , 4. 46 Ibid., 18.

http://www.pmi.org/PDF/pp_robbenjamin.pdf

23



DECEMBER 2009

In an effort to evaluate the impact of project management methodologies on project success, Hanover designed and administered a survey instrument to 22 Australian universities, collecting four complete records. In addition to providing the project management methodology employed by each respondent, the table below presents each respondent’s level of satisfaction with the given methodology, as well as how he or she perceives this methodology’s impact on project success:

Institution Project

Management Methodology

Level of satisfaction with project

management methodology

Impact of current project management methodology

on project success (since adoption)

Respondent A Thomsett Satisfied Increased success

Respondent B In-house/custom Unsatisfied Increased success

Respondent C PMBoK Somewhat satisfied Increased success

Respondent D PRINCE2 Somewhat satisfied Maintained same level Source: The Hanover Research Council

The four survey respondents employ four distinct PM methodologies: PMBoK, PRINCE2, Thomsett, and an in-house/custom methodology. While respondents reported limited overall satisfaction with their methodologies, they all reported that these methods either maintained or increased the level of project success. As is evident above, Respondents C and D were somewhat satisfied with PMBoK and PRINCE2, Respondent A was satisfied with Thomsett, and Respondent B was unsatisfied with his or her in-house/custom framework. However, Respondents A, B, and C believed that their project management methodologies increased project success, while Respondent D (who uses PRINCE2) stated that its methodology merely maintained the same level of project success. The four survey respondents also commented on the strengths and weaknesses of their respective project management methodologies:

Respondent A reported that Thomsett improved both stakeholder management and project governance structure. According to the respondent, the methodology resulted in stakeholder and team member roles being better defined and understood. The survey participant noted the increased use and awareness of Thomsett's tools and templates, such as issue registers and risk management plans, described by the respondent as "easy to understand" and "relatively flexible."

Respondent B remarked that his or her in-house/custom methodology successfully facilitates an "auditable paperwork trail," guarantees

47 Besner, C. & Hobbes, B. 2008. "The Reality of Project Management Practice: Phase Two of an Ongoing Study." University of Quebec at Montreal. http://www.pmi.org/PDF/Besner%20and%20Hobbs%20Practices%20Survey%20Report%20Phase%202.pdf , 13.

http://www.pmi.org/PDF/Besner%20and%20Hobbs%20Practices%20Survey%20Report%20Phase%202.pdf

24



DECEMBER 2009

adherence to "tender RFQ and RFP Policy," and "dedicates staff to ensuring that deadlines are met and priorities set." The respondent mentioned the need to improve its project portfolio, reduce the number of task tracking applications, and introduce documentation in the area of people change policy and procedures.

Respondent C noted the gradual adoption of PMBoK's "consistent formal approach," and pointed out how the method allows "expectations to be shared in the management of projects." While the respondent considered PMBoK's set of tools and templates to be its greatest strength, he or she noted that in the areas of culture change, automation, and portfolio governance, adoption of PMBoK could be improved.

Respondent D reported that PRINCE2 facilitates "better decision-making on continuance or start-up of projects." The respondent believes that the methodology's greatest strength is that it provides a common framework and a consistent approach to projects. The respondent noted that the university seeks to educate users "about project life cycles so that they understand the whole picture," convince them of the methodology’s value, and mitigate the perception that the methodology “brings an additional overhead."

Agile Methodologies In the survey administered by Hanover, none of the respondents reported using specific agile methodologies. However, Respondent D discussed customizing his or her institution’s project management methodology "according to the governance level of a particular project." For this university, projects with higher governance conform more rigidly to the PRINCE2 guidelines, while "low risk, non University wide projects" might involve informal "email or even verbal reporting" methods and do not require a detailed project plan. None of the ten university project offices examined by Hanover seem to discuss the use of agile processes, although a few of the institutions noted that they disregard the formal project management methodology for smaller projects, suggesting a degree of agility or customization in project management. A survey of scholarly research suggests that the successful integration of agile-driven development with plan-driven methodologies like PRINCE2 and PMBoK relies on the ability of involved individuals to work as a team in serving the customer and delivering measurable business results.48 Yet at the same time, "because of the low formality of agile practices,” project offices “will

48 Hass, Kathleen B. “The Blending of Traditional and Agile Project Management.” http://www.pmforum.org/library/tips/2007/PDFs/Hass-5-07.pdf , 7.

http://www.pmforum.org/library/tips/2007/PDFs/Hass-5-07.pdf

25



DECEMBER 2009

have to rethink what constitutes best practices, and whether or not a best practice for one team is translatable to another team."49 The compromise that project offices must achieve in balancing compliance concerns and project teams’ "freedom to self-organize” is important to the successful integration of the two methods.50 Moreover, there are a number of other issues that must be addressed in the integration process, including:

Redefining how teams gather metrics

Matrixing vs. projectized reporting hierarchies

New ways to reward high-performing teams instead of individual stars

Resource allocation

Skill set gaps

Ongoing training

Redefining new career paths

Performance rating policies51 The incorporation of agile management into traditional projects re-focuses the project outcomes on the ultimate benefits, rather than on the completion of the project within the timeframe and under the required budget.52 However, agile methods are also subject to potential drawbacks, as discussed in a review of previous agile development studies completed by Dybå and Dingsøyr. This review focused on some of the potential pitfalls of applying agile methods, as exemplified by three software companies:

[The companies] found that the engineers were motivated by the principles of agile development, but that the managers were initially afraid and needed to be trained. They also found that as a result of using agile development, the engineers focused on past and current releases, while the managers focused increasingly on current and future releases. A potential problem was that technical issues were raised too early for management.53

Clearly, strong and capable management is pivotal in successfully integrating agile management with more formal systems. In the results of a 2005 survey on the impact of agile methods at twenty software companies, it was discovered that agile methods improved requirements management, quality, team satisfaction, and customer satisfaction. Furthermore, software companies that use agile methods

49 Sliger, M. "A Project Manager's Survival Guide to Going Agile." Whitepaper, Rally Software Corporation. www.rallydev.com , 11. 50 Ibid. 51 Quoted with slight variations from: Ibid. 52 Hass, Kathleen B. Op.cit. 53 T. Dybå and T. Dingsøyr. 2008. "Empirical Studies of Agile Software Development: A Systematic Review". Information and Software Technology. 50(9-10). http://alarcos.inf-cr.uclm.es/doc/MetoTecInfInf/Articulos/dyba.pdf , 12.

http://www.rallydev.com/

http://alarcos.inf-cr.uclm.es/doc/MetoTecInfInf/Articulos/dyba.pdf

http://alarcos.inf-cr.uclm.es/doc/MetoTecInfInf/Articulos/dyba.pdf

26



DECEMBER 2009

seemed to be more satisfied with project planning than their plan-based counterparts. However, the authors mention certain challenges that can complicate the introduction of agile methods, including:

The lack of a detailed preliminary cost evaluation,

Lack of qualified staff,

The general troubles that new concepts (such as pair programming, test first, and customers on-site) cause, and

Cultural difficulties, such as "customers and developers" who "don’t easily accept drastic changes in traditional environments."54

As such, the literature seems to suggest that careful planning is essential for the successful integration of agile methodologies into traditional project management methods.

54 Quoted verbatim from: Ceschi, M., Sillitti A., & Succi, G. 2005 "Project Management in Plan-Based and Agile Companies." IEEE Software. 22 (3): 21. http://www.inf.unibz.it/~gsucci/publications/images/projectmanagementinplan-basedandagilecompanies.pdf , 6.

http://www.inf.unibz.it/~gsucci/publications/images/projectmanagementinplan-basedandagilecompanies.pdf

27



DECEMBER 2009

Summary of Project Management Trends in Australian Higher Education

Hanover’s findings drawn from our review of eleven highly-ranked Australian institutions and corresponding survey efforts reveal a high degree of formality – particularly in the planning documentation required – and a high level of structured governance in the institutions’ project management methodologies. Furthermore, it seems that the level of formality, governance, and methodologies are primarily the same across institutions, as our research of university project offices revealed that the institutions generally employed one of two project management methodologies: PRINCE2 and PMBoK. Canberra University, the University of Sydney, La Trobe University, Macquarie University, and University of Tasmania use PRINCE2, while RMIT, Southern Cross University, the University of Ballarat, and the University of Queensland base their project management methodologies on PMBoK. Furthermore, the University of Western Sydney does not explicitly state its methodology, and Monash University uses Thomsett as a guideline. The four respondents to Hanover’s survey noted that their institutions employ four distinct project management methodologies: PMBoK, PRINCE2, Thomsett, and an in-house/custom methodology. University project offices demonstrate varying levels of formal project management documentation, with documentation being most prevalent at the planning stage. While project management methodology alone does not seem to determine the level of formality implemented throughout the project lifecycle, most of the universities noted customizing their project management methodologies to suit their needs. In terms of governance, most universities identify the various stakeholders in the project management process, and a number of institutions define the responsibilities and proficiencies required for each role. At least four of the eleven institutions examined provide workflow diagrams related to project governance, suggesting a heightened hierarchical approach. Most of the universities designate different project types and sizes, and several discuss how these distinctions impact governance processes. While none of the surveyed respondents reported using specific agile methodologies, an examination of scholarly research suggests that the successful integration of agile-driven development and plan-driven methodologies is generally beneficial.

28



DECEMBER 2009

Appendix

Australian Universities’ Project Office Websites La Trobe University

Project Brief


Project Management Team


Methodology

http://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?d=4755306230060837&mkt=en-US&setlang=en-US&w=3f3f85c5,cf391eb4

Templates

http://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?q=%22http+www+latrobe+edu+au+ict+pmo+templates%22&d=4671352506746856&mkt=en-US&setlang=en-US&w=dd084eaa,eb3f1e7b

University of Canberra

Full Project Proposal

http://www.canberra.edu.au/icts/attachments2/word/Full-Project-Proposal-template20080225.doc

Information & Communication Technology Group Roles & Responsibilities

http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:ND5MyQe9TPUJ:www.canberra.edu.au/icts/pmo/pm-uc/roles-responsibilities/itag

Project Prioritisation

http://web.archive.org/web/20080801211350/http://www.canberra.edu.au/icts/pmo/pm-uc/portfolio-management

Requesting Changes

https://guard.canberra.edu.au/policy/download.php?file_id=1601














http://web.archive.org/web/20080801211350/http:/www.canberra.edu.au/icts/pmo/pm-uc/portfolio-management

http://web.archive.org/web/20080801211350/http:/www.canberra.edu.au/icts/pmo/pm-uc/portfolio-management

https://guard.canberra.edu.au/policy/download.php?file_id=1601

29



DECEMBER 2009

Project Templates

http://web.archive.org/web/20080801212312/www.canberra.edu.au/icts/pmo/project-templates


PMO Services


Project Management Process Flowchart

http://www.its.uq.edu.au/docs/Project Management Process Flowchart.pdf

Management Levels in ITS projects


Maturity Reviews

http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:V6_9ZTjVjtQJ:www.its.uq.edu.au/docs/Maturity_Reviews.doc+http://www.its.uq.edu.au/docs/maturity_reviews.doc

Monash University

Project Management @ Monash


Governance

http://www.its.monash.edu.au/staff/projects/project-management/governance.html

ICTS Projects

http://www.its.monash.edu.au/staff/projects/

Project Management Framework

http://www.its.monash.edu.au/staff/projects/project-management/

Templates

http://www.its.monash.edu.au/staff/projects/project-management/templates/




http://www.its.uq.edu.au/docs/Project%20Management%20Process%20Flowchart.pdf








http://www.its.monash.edu.au/staff/projects/

http://www.its.monash.edu.au/staff/projects/project-management/



30



DECEMBER 2009


Special Project Unit

http://www.uws.edu.au/special_projects/special_projects_unit

Project Management Methodology


Initiating


Planning


Executing

http://www.uws.edu.au/special_projects/special_projects_unit/project_management_methodology/executing_stage

Controlling


Closing

http://www.uws.edu.au/special_projects/special_projects_unit/project_management_methodology/closing_stage


Project Communication

http://www.its.mq.edu.au/projects/project_communication.html

Methodology

http://www.its.mq.edu.au/projects/methodology.html

ITS Services Project Delivery

http://www.its.mq.edu.au/projects/

http://www.uws.edu.au/special_projects/special_projects_unit













http://www.its.mq.edu.au/projects/project_communication.html

http://www.its.mq.edu.au/projects/methodology.html

http://www.its.mq.edu.au/projects/

31



DECEMBER 2009

Engagement Model

http://www.its.mq.edu.au/projects/engagement_model.html

Ballarat University

Project Methodology Guide


Project Methodology Office



Project Management Office

http://www.usyd.edu.au/ict/PMO/pmo/pmm/overview.shtml

Lifecycle

http://www.usyd.edu.au/ict/PMO/pmo/lifecycle.shtml

Governance


Proposals

http://www.usyd.edu.au/ict/PMO/proposal.shtml

RMIT

Project Management Framework: Project Management & CMM Cross Reference


Project Management Framework Roadmap

http://web.archive.org/web/20060902020843/mams.rmit.edu.au/ge9u0rjasp4o1.pdf

Project Office

http://www.rmit.edu.au/browse/Our%20Organisation%2FUniversity%20services%2FInformation%20Technology%20Services%2FInformation%20and%20Services%2FStaff%20services%2FProject%20Services%2FProject%20Office/

http://www.its.mq.edu.au/projects/engagement_model.html




http://www.usyd.edu.au/ict/PMO/pmo/pmm/overview.shtml

http://www.usyd.edu.au/ict/PMO/pmo/lifecycle.shtml


http://www.usyd.edu.au/ict/PMO/proposal.shtml








32



DECEMBER 2009

Product management framework processes


Project management framework



About the PM Office


Project Prioritisation Flowchart

http://scu.edu.au/it/download.php?doc_id=3628&site_id=116

PDF icon Project Approval Flowchart

scu.edu.au/it/download.php?doc_id=3627&site_id=116

University of Tasmania

PMM@UTAS

http://www.cis.utas.edu.au/student-proj-sby/pmmutas/index.html

Project Office Charter


Project Documents

http://www.utas.edu.au/itr/projects/project_office/

ICT- Project Management Guidelines

http://www.utas.edu.au/itr/projects/pm_guidelines.html

Project Management Services

http://www.utas.edu.au/docs/fin_services/archive/08_2004/projectmgmt.pdf





http://scu.edu.au/it/download.php?doc_id=3628&site_id=116

http://www.cis.utas.edu.au/student-proj-sby/pmmutas/index.html


http://www.utas.edu.au/itr/projects/project_office/

http://www.utas.edu.au/itr/projects/pm_guidelines.html

http://www.utas.edu.au/docs/fin_services/archive/08_2004/projectmgmt.pdf

33



DECEMBER 2009

Project Evaluation Form

The Hanover Research Council is committed to providing a work product that meets or exceeds member expectations. In keeping with that goal, we would like to hear your opinions regarding our reports. Feedback is critically important and serves as the strongest mechanism by which we tailor our research to your organization. When you have had a chance to evaluate this report, please take a moment to fill out the following questionnaire. http://www.hanoverresearch.com/evaluation/index.php

Note This brief was written to fulfill the specific request of an individual member of The Hanover Research Council. As such, it may not satisfy the needs of all members. We encourage any and all members who have additional questions about this topic – or any other – to contact us.

Caveat The publisher and authors have used their best efforts in preparing this brief. The publisher and authors make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this brief and specifically disclaim any implied warranties of fitness for a particular purpose. There are no warranties which extend beyond the descriptions contained in this paragraph. No warranty may be created or extended by representatives of The Hanover Research Council or its marketing materials. The accuracy and completeness of the information provided herein and the opinions stated herein are not guaranteed or warranted to produce any particular results, and the advice and strategies contained herein may not be suitable for every member. Neither the publisher nor the authors shall be liable for any loss of profit or any other commercial damages, including but not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or other damages. Moreover, The Hanover Research Council is not engaged in rendering legal, accounting, or other professional services. Members requiring such services are advised to consult an appropriate professional.

http://www.hanoverresearch.com/evaluation/index.php