© project one consulting limited 2015. all rights reserved. 0 change planning maturity assessment...

© Project One Consulting Limited 2015. All rights reserved. 1

Change Planning Maturity Assessment

November 2015

V04

Change Capability Improvement


We see Change Planning as one of the key disciplines that support great change:

Change Capability Framework

So, how do the individual planning capabilities interact?

Sourcing

Planning

Leadership

Solution

Vision for Change Business Need Results &

ReadinessAdoption & Ownership

Architecture Requirements & Design

Modifications & Transition

Support & Improvement

Sourcing Strategy

Supplier Selection

Supplier Management

Supplier Optimisation

Portfolio Definition

Demand Management

Delivery Oversight

BenefitsManagement

Defining Specifying Implementing Embedding

ChangeOperatingModel

Strategy & Principles Organisation Processes &

HandoffsGovernance &

Accountabilities

Needs Glossy Slide


Planning interactions are subtle, primarily driven by the flow of information:

So, what are the activities within in each capability?

Change Planning Framework

Resource Scheduling

StrategyRefresh

DemandInterlock

Transition Management

DemandPlanning

ChangePlanning

CapacityPlanning

BenefitsRealisation

Delivery Optimisation

ChangeSponsor

ChangeDelivery

Portfolio Definition Demand Management

Benefits Management Delivery Oversight

ImplementationManagement

Needs Glossy Slide


Each area is made up characteristic activities, each with its own outcome:

Change Planning Activities

Resource Scheduling

StrategyRefresh

DemandInterlock


DemandPlanning

ChangePlanning

CapacityPlanning

BenefitsRealisation


ChangeSponsor

ChangeDelivery

ImplementationManagement

• Strategic review• Medium/long term planning

Business imperatives

• Investment definition• Financial hurdle definition• Categorisation/Prioritisaton Uncommitted portfolio

• Demand types agreed• Resourcing strategy• Tollgate governance Defined demand

• Supply/demand planning• Delivery commitments• Resource planning Committed portfolio

• Resource soft-booking• Sourcing/supplier planning• Workforce/talent planning Committed resource plan

• Benefits tracking

Shifts in key metrics

• Benefit planning• Project closedown

Benefit realisation plans

• Assessing change load• Readiness planning• Go/No-Go decisions Business release plans

• Project forecasting/QA• RAID management• Change control Delivery progress reports

• Resource hard-booking• Supplier contracting• Productivity management Resourced project plans

Needs Glossy Slide


Change Planning Maturity Assessment Overview

Capability Level 1Initial

Level 2Repeatable

Level 3Defined

Level 4Managed

Level 5Optimising

Strategy Refresh Unclear Narrow Comprehensive Coherent Integrated

Change Planning Vague Fragmented Coordinated Aligned Seamless

Demand Planning Chaotic Sporadic Regular Routine Dynamic

Demand Interlock Instinctive Restricted Periodic Real-Time Flexible

Capacity Planning Limited Siloed Active Co-ordinated Strategic

Resource Scheduling Informal Request-Driven Availability-Driven Skills-Driven Proactive

Delivery Optimisation Non-standard Partial Standard-Driven Template-Driven Tailored

Implementation Management

Best Endeavours Project Focused Business-Focused Controlled Readiness-Focused

Transition Management Rudimentary Decoupled Formal Process-Focus Outcome-Focus

Benefits Realisation Intermittent Checked Mapped Governed Focused


Strategy Refresh

Topic Description Level 1Initial

Level 2Repeatable

Level 3Defined

Level 4 Manageable

Level 5Optimising

Strategy Definition

Determination of a clear business strategy

High level, aspirational strategies

Narrow strategy focussing on top and bottom line performance

Complete strategies, looking at all aspects of the business: Top / Bottom Line, Product, Customer, Operations, IT etc.

Integrated strategies that are periodically checked for coherence across disciplines – e.g. customer and IT

Integrated strategies that are routinely checked for coherence across disciplines

Strategy Dialogue

Who has been involved the collation of strategy

Created by the CEO Created by the CEO and Exec Board

Created through delegation to accountable execs – COO, CIO etc.

Created through managed dialogue between exec functions

Created through habitual collaboration between exec functions

Strategic Reviews

Frequency of strategic reviews Ad-hoc Annual review Annual and medium term review cycle

Annual and medium term review cycle, with provision for out-of-cycle reviews should the business context change materially

Rolling review

StrategicImperatives

Translation of defined strategy into meaningful and measurable imperatives that can be used to drive change planning and management incentives

Incentives absent, aspirational, or vague

Incentives use common themes, but are open to selective interpretation

Objectively measureable imperatives, but not applied to change planning or management incentives

Objectively measurable imperatives used to drive change planning, or management incentives

Objectively measurable imperatives that are actively integrated into both change planning, and management incentives


Change Planning


Level 2Repeatable

Level 3Defined

Level 4 Manageable

Level 5Optimising

Defined Changes How changes are defined before delivery costs are incurred

Vaguely described idea Earmarked budget with some form of expected outcome defined

The reason for the change is clear (the Why), as is the proposed solution (the What)

The reason for the change is clear (the Why), as is the proposed solution (the What) and the proposed delivery approach (the How)

Why, What and How determined through collaboration, with all options considered and with an shared view of how the work should start

Change Portfolio The record of the planned changes and the associated budget

Absent, or multiple instances of incomplete / overlapping lists

Multiple instances that can be collated to create a single view, albeit with significant manual intervention (fire-drills)

Centrally managed change log, albeit with gaps in key data items

A single version of the truth, providing all required data to an appropriate level of detail

A single version of the truth that can be tailored for the needs of stakeholders – sponsors, architects, delivery teams etc.

Investment categorisation

How different types of change are categorised and managed

Absent, or defined individually by planned programmes and projects

Basic categorisation between Must-Do and ‘Other’ changes

Standard set of categories defined to separate out various types of discretionary and non-discretionary change

All change categories defined and include non-project change (e.g. seed funding, advice). Categories have owners to ensure objective allocation of budget and resource

All change categories defined, with assigned owners. Categories are dynamically managed to maximise budget and resource available for strategic change

Investment Prioritisation

How budget and resource is prioritised across the planned programmes and projects

No process – driven by ‘first-come-first-served’, or ‘he-who-shouts-loudest’

Basic prioritisation mechanism exists, but the outcome depends on how effective the change sponsor is at petitioning for budget and resource

Some degree of objective annual process. Projects are assessed against typical criteria – e.g. strategic fit, ROI, delivery risk

Objective annual process, with checks and balances to validate the outcome – e.g. signoff by planning committee, sponsors not actively making priority calls

Fully objective, rolling process, with the ability to review and dynamically respond to changing business context and imperatives

In-Flight Programmes and Projects

If and how in-flight changes are reviewed against future planned changes

Not reviewed Only reviewed if there are significant delivery challenges

Routinely reviewed, but rarely re-directed in line with latest business context and imperatives

In-flight projects are actively re-directed, but driven by fixed portfolio review cycles

In-flight projects are actively re-directed, based on more dynamic, rolling review cycles


Demand Planning


Level 2Repeatable

Level 3Defined

Level 4 Manageable

Level 5Optimising

Demand Types Defining all types of demand and their impact on available resource

Demand types not defined, driven entirely by outputs from budgeting

Programme and project demand types defined, although limited transparency within programmes

Programme and project demand types defined, with programme transparency down to component project level

All types of demand defined – extended to include small change, advice, BAU requirements etc.

Demand types fully defined and aligned with budgeting and time recording principles and processes

Planning Horizon The timescale over which the change portfolio is planned

Visibility of in-flight programmes and projects only

Horizon restricted to future funded change – i.e. where budget drawdown has been approved

Horizon extends to the end of the financial year, but with limited insight beyond

18+ month rolling, view independent of budgeting cycle

18+ month rolling view available, together with outline 3 – 5 year rolling view

Demand Tollgates

The defined control points through which mobilising projects are guided and controlled – to the point when a delivery commitment can be made

Absent, or ad hoc control points

Partially defined and/or inconsistently applied

Formally defined process with defined terms of reference for each tollgate. Tollgate reviews overly process-focused, incomplete in their focus, or of limited value.

Formally defined process, with reviews based around business outcomes and routinely value-adding. Limited flex in the application of tollgates to different types of change.

Multiple tollgate pathways available, based on the needs to the change, and with the ability to adjust pathways in-flight

Resource Strategy

How direction is set on the skills and competencies to from in-house vs. those to source externally

Absent, decisions made on a project-by-project basis

Strategy is considered, but fragmented across, business lines, HR, IT etc.

External sourcing strategy exists, but not linked to contractor controls or the development of in-house talent

Integrated strategy exists across third parties, contractors and in-house resources, but often over-written by short term project needs

Integrated strategy exists, is refreshed, and drives long and short-term resource planning and budgeting cycles

Estimates And Forecasts

Quality of budget and resource estimates available across all types of demand

No standards in place, quality varies wildly across the portfolio

Standards exist but don’t cover all activities

Comprehensive standards exist, but inconsistently applied

Reusable estimating models exist and are used, but routine management intervention is required to create a realistic aggregate view

Bottom-up views aggregated across all project and programmes are largely reliable, with only exceptional management intervention is required


Demand Interlock


Level 2Repeatable

Level 3Defined

Level 4 Manageable

Level 5Optimising

Resource Planning Standards

Having clear standards for the planning and phasing of project resource forecasts

Basic standards, but not linked to how supply is managed

Defined, but restricted to the planning of hard-booked (named) resources

Defined, but restricted to hard and soft booked resources (named and requested)

Defined completely, to include hard and soft booked resources, together with planned resourcing (including suppliers) for the lifetime of the project

Defined standards allow multiple views of resource plans – e.g. by location, by role etc.

Supply vs Demand Management

The ability to compare current supply with forecast demand and flex accordingly to create an achievable change plan

Supply and demand views not available – decisions rely on instinctive judgement

Process exists to match supply to demand, but used inconsistently, or not trusted as a basis for decision making

Supply / demand analysis used to drive crude flexing of supply and / or project phasing. Analysis tends to be performed periodically

Supply / demand analysis is performed routinely and used to drive continued flexing of resource plans and project phasing

Supply / demand planning integrated into Portfolio Definition and processes, and aligned with cost-centre structures to allow real-time scenario planning and assessment of affordability

Supply / Demand Granularity

The level of detail at which supply/demand analysis can be performed

Absent, or only available at the highest level – e.g. across IT resource pool

Available by job family / practice – e.g. Design, Test

Available across all areas, including BAU teams - e.g. business users

Available to a level that allows known bottlenecks to be managed – e.g. specific technical skills, certain business know-how

Ability to analyse using multiple parameters – by business, by technology, by location etc.

Budget Drawdown

How assigned project budgets are managed and consumed

Limited controls, entire project budgets allocated from the outset

Budgets drawn down by financial accounting period

Budgets drawn down by project phase/stage

Separation of lifetime spend and budget draw down, to allow full resource planning

Integrated standards across project planning, resource planning and cost centre budgeting


Capacity Planning


Level 2Repeatable

Level 3Defined

Level 4 Manageable

Level 5Optimising

Resource Soft-Booking

How resources are requested to work on programmes and projects

Absent, or limited process. Resources often requested by name. No checks whether request is for a legitimate project.

Resources are formally requested with the requested routed to the relevant supply pool, albeit with limited collaboration across fungible pools of resource

Resource request are sufficiently detailed to allow an active matching with the skills and competencies across the resource pool. Limited options where matches cannot be made, resulting in many escalations

Resource requests are sufficiently detailed to allow matching, with pre-approved options to secure contractor or third party resources where there is no internal match

Resource matching adheres to a defined resource strategy, resulting in minimal escalations

In-House Talent Management

How resource planning integrates with in-house talent management and career planning

Resources are matched based on who you know and local knowledge

No linkage to talent and career planning resulting in frequent ‘out of depth’ assignments

Talent and career planning needs are considered when matching, but not traced back to the underlying talent and career plans

Matching references captured information on resource skills and competencies

Matching references captured information on resource skills and competencies, which is in turn integrated with talent and career management strategies and plans

Supplier Resource Planning

How resource planning integrates with the use of third party resources

No standards, agreed on a project-by-project basis

Third party resourcing guidelines exist but may cut across in-house talent strategies

Standard third party resourcing guidelines exist, but lack of notice means that suppliers perform project roles that, ideally, should be performed by in-house resources

Standard third party resourcing guidelines exist. Use of suppliers is directionally correct, with occasional back-filling where in-house capacity is not available

In the vast majority of cases, suppliers perform the types of role set out in the resourcing strategy


Resource Scheduling


Level 2Repeatable

Level 3Defined

Level 4 Manageable

Level 5Optimising

Resource Hard-booking

How individual resources are assigned to work on programmes and projects

Absent, or limited process. Resources self-schedule or assigned through informal processes

Resources are assigned from within their, supply pool, with little consideration of availability

Individuals are assigned based on availability

Individuals are assigned best on best match of availability, best endeavours knowledge of skills and competency

Individuals are assigned best on best match of availability, and tracked skills and competency

Productivity How productive resource time is tracked and controlled

No tracking Productivity is tracked at a high level, but not by resource, resulting in frequent over-allocation

Productivity tracked, but doesn’t include all types of demand (e.g. advice) resulting in allocation challenges for niche skills and experience

All demand types considered in productivity calculation (as well as non-productive time tracked) - availability closely tracked, albeit reactively

All demand types considered in productivity calculation (as well as non-productive time tracked) - availability proactively tracked

Supplier contracts

How supplier contracts are recorded against project plans

Not done Ad hoc tracking mechanisms, per project

Supplier plans are recorded, but held separately to project plans

Supplier plans tracked as part of overall project baseline, though not phased

Supplier plans tracked and phased as part of overall project baseline




Level 2Repeatable

Level 3Defined

Level 4 Manageable

Level 5Optimising

Project Management Approach

The specification of standard project management approaches and techniques

No standards defined Project management approaches are inflexible, not comprehensive or not followed consistently

A coherent project management approach exists and is adhered to at varying levels across the group

A coherent project management approach exists and is largely adhered to, but there is limited flexibility to encompass discrete delivery methods

A coherent project management approach exists, is largely adhered to, and can be tailored to the specific needs of different delivery methods

Time Capture How resource time is captured against projects

Not captured Captured against projects only

Captured against projects and other categories of productive time

Captured by project phase, where required

Captured by project deliverable, where required

Project Progress Reporting

The formal reporting of project progress and anticipated delivery performance

Ad hoc progress reports created when required, to support management meetings

Basic progress and financial reports are created on a regular basis, albeit standards vary by project

Reporting standards are in place and followed across all projects. Basic reactive KPIs are identified and reported against regularly

Reporting standards are in place and followed across all projects – and easily aggregated to programme or portfolio level. Basic reactive KPIs are identified and reported against

Reporting standards are in place, followed and allow aggregation. More sophisticated forward-looking KPIs are also identified and reported against

Project Controls The quality of project plans, estimates, schedules, benefits, RAID etc.

No standards or guidelines in place. Variable quality of tracking mechanisms across projects, many key controls absent - e.g. schedule analysis, RAID tracking

Basic work breakdown structure utilised across project plans, but application varies by project. Basic controls in place for budget and schedule control – e.g. % completion. Basic RAID controls in place

Basic work breakdown structure in place and consistently applied across project plans. Standard mechanisms in place for budget and schedule control – e.g. actuals, ETC, variance to budget etc. Standard RAID controls in place, including escalation mechanisms

Standard work breakdown structure in place, centrally owned with pre-defined templates, and consistently applied across project plans. Standard, centrally owned templates in place for budget and schedule control and RAID management. Project performance is subject to iterative line management review and standard project boards are in place

A variety of standard work breakdown structures are in place to suit the delivery method being used, Standard, centrally owned templates in place for budget, schedule, RAID as well as business outcomes – e.g. benefits review. Project performance is subject to iterative line management review and a variety of project governance mechanisms are available

Project Variations How variations from plan are identified and managed

No standard mechanisms in place. Projects are not baselined and variations are not adequately tracked

Project forecasts are produced, but they tend to forecast to the allocated budget, rather than the expected outturn

Project forecasts are compared to budget and some degree of contingency mechanism is in place to compensate for variances

Project plans are routinely baselined with standard contingency and change control mechanisms are in place to compensate for variances

Project plans are routinely baselined. Standard contingency and change control mechanisms are in place for assumption changes. Variances due to delivery errors are addressed separately

Delivery Tollgates The defined control points through which project delivery is guided and controlled – from the point a delivery commitment is made, through to implementation

Absent, or ad hoc control points

Partially defined and/or inconsistently applied

Formally defined process with defined terms of reference for each tollgate. Tollgate reviews overly process-focused, incomplete in their focus, or of limited value.

Formally defined process, with reviews based around business outcomes and routinely value-adding. Limited flex in the application of tollgates to different types of change.

Multiple tollgate pathways available, based on the needs to the change, and with the ability to adjust pathways in-flight


Implementation Management


Level 2Repeatable

Level 3Defined

Level 4 Manageable

Level 5Optimising

Change Load Ascertaining the impact of change across the organisation – who is affected, to what degree, and when and balancing the overall change load across the business

No tracking mechanisms in place

Projects manage their own change impacts, but cross-project conflicts commonly occur

Projects actively consult with the impacted business functions. Business functions perform some degree of load balancing

Standard mechanisms are in place and formally co-ordinated and managed through dialogue and governance

Change load tracking data is available and can be used to improve the effectiveness of governance

Business Readiness

The ability to test that all areas of the business are ready, willing and able to operate after planned changes have been implementing

Readiness not formally assessed. Managed on a best endeavours basis by some projects

Managed by projects, but tend to focus on delivery checks – testing, documentation etc., rather than the businesses ability to operate after the project has completed

Basic readiness tracking standards are defined, but inconsistently applied across projects

Basic readiness tracking standards are defined, and are consistently applied across projects

Comprehensive readiness tracking standards are defined, are consistently applied across projects, and integrated into tollgate and QA control processes

Release Controls The overall governance to managing the release of new changes

Multiple, or unclear, points of responsibility for release management

Projects / functions have created their individual definitions and handover mechanisms

Clear responsibility for release management allocated across stakeholders

Centralised coordination of releases

Specialist release management capability with full coordination responsibility and ownership




Level 2Repeatable

Level 3Defined

Level 4 Manageable

Level 5Optimising

Benefits Plans The transfer of benefit plans to be owned and taken forward by BAU management

No process exist, benefits tracking (if it happens at all) is completely independent from any project business case

Benefits are reviewed at the point of transition, but no auditable process to transfer to BAU

A formal handover process has been defined, but is not used consistently

A formal handover process is defined and used consistently

A formal handover process is defined and used consistently, and includes agreement of the KPIs, processes and governance by which benefits will be tracked across BAU functions

Project Closedown

The process by which projects are shut down

No defined process, process varies by project

Reactive ‘clean-up’ process exists, commonly managed by the PMO

Formal closedown mechanism exists, but not always followed

Formal closedown mechanism exists and is followed, but is somewhat process focused

Formal closedown mechanism exists and is followed, but is more outcome focused and includes triggers for project post implementation reviews


Benefits Realisation


Level 2Repeatable

Level 3Defined

Level 4 Manageable

Level 5Optimising

Benefits Ownership

The mechanism for establishing ownership for the realisation of benefits.

There is no formal accountability for benefits realisation, which is seldom assessed post-implementation

The business case artefact identifies who is accountable for the benefits

Business Case owners are accountable for benefits realisation, which is measured post-implementation. Personal objectives linked to delivery milestones

All Stakeholders are accountable for benefits realisation, which is agreed & measured throughout the project lifecycle

Key stakeholders have benefits realisation built into their performance objectives and rewards are linked to delivery of benefits

Benefits Plans How benefit plans are taken forward by BAU management

No process exist, benefits tracking (if it happens at all) is completely independent from any project business case

Business performance is reviewed against targets, but limited tracing back to the planned benefits from projects

A formal process exists for mapping planned project benefits through to business performance KPIs, but rarely used to drive management actions

A formal process exists for mapping planned project benefits through to business performance KPIs. The process has oversight and governance to ensure benefits realisation plans are routinely discussed and managed

A formal process exists for mapping planned project benefits through to business performance KPIs. The process has oversight and governance, and more vigorous governance to ensure benefits realisation plans are achieved

Continuous Improvement

The mechanisms in place to capture and build on lessons learnt and plans for improvements

Post-implementation reviews are undertaken inconsistently and lessons may be learned by individuals from issues encountered

Post implementation reviews documented in formal structure but reviewed only by project team or immediate stakeholders

Post-implementation reviews documented and shared with wider peer group as learning for the development of future plans and business cases

All reviews and recommendations centralised and made available to all stakeholders. KPI’s used to monitor and drive improvements

All reviews and recommendations centralised and made available to all stakeholders. KPI’s used to monitor and drive improvements and improvements are driven by process owners and communities of practice

© project one consulting limited 2015. all rights reserved. 0 change planning maturity assessment...

Documents