babcock international group plc sh1200241636 v0.05 project status reviews apm swwe event,...

Babcock International Group Plcwww.babcock.co.uk

SH1200241636 V0.05

Project Status Reviews Project Status Reviews APM SWWE Event, 31/01/2012Pete Ricketts FAPM

Babcock Marine, Technology, Systems & Equipment


• How can we have confidence that a project is on track to deliver the agreed outcome?

• Can this confidence be gained by just looking at the project managers monthly report, or should we be delving deeper?

• This session will provide an overview of the process in use at Babcock to enable those present to understand how this might be implemented within their own organisation.


Agenda

• What we do at Babcock S&E, Bristol• Assurance Review process• Results of reviews• Overall findings• Questions


SH1200241636 V0.05

Status Review ProcessStatus Review Process


Background to implementation

• The process was developed on the back of a detailed review of a project.

• Process was then documented and trials undertaken.

• The trials threw up interesting results….• So we’ve carried on doing the reviews.


Different to Quality Reviews

Quality Audits Project Status Reviews

Audits are conducted to confirm compliance with our Quality Management System.

Also to identify areas of good a practice and improvements to our QA procedures

The CSR is a structured process for reviewing where a project currently is, and the plans going forward.

The CSR is complimentary to the CCPR process in terms of assessing whether the project will be delivered successfully and meet the agreed objectives.


Review Process – in 3 Parts

• Undertaken in three (1.5hr sessions) and examines evidence that; – The project manager understands what he

needs to do, – He has a plan for doing it, – Reviews where the project is against the plan.

• Ten assessment areas within each part.• No preparation required by the PM


Review Process (con’t)

• The reviews look in detail at whether good project management practice is being applied.

• Based on the evidence seen, apply a “score” to each of the ten areas reviewed.

• Enables a view of whether the project is likely to be delivered successfully (or can identify early warning signs).

• Is an opportunity to mentor and share good practice across the teams.


Scope of review areas – sample questions

1) Evidence that Technical Requirements are clearly defined, understood and disseminated?

2) Evidence that Scope of Supply is clearly defined and understood, including Hardware, Documentation, Test Equipment?

3) Evidence that the Acceptance Events are clearly defined, understood and disseminated?

4) etc


Scoring based on Evidence

No Evidence • As it suggests, no meaningful evidence supporting

the matter in question.

Some Evidence • Some evidence indicating an attempt to address the

matter in question, but a long way short of fully satisfying the assessment criteria.

Clear Evidence • Evidence that indicates a good endeavour to address

the matter in question, but some minor shortfalls observed.

Full Evidence • Evidence that fully satisfies the assessment criteria.


Results Captured and Recorded.

• Projects are scored and results plotted.

No Evidence 10%

Some Evidence 40%

Clear Evidence 70%

Full Evidence 100%

Some criteria not scored 0%


Part 1, Understanding of Requirements

1) Technical Requirements

2) Scope of Supply

3) Acceptance Events

4) Terms and Conditions

5) Delivery Dates

6) Interfaces

7) Quality Requirements

8) Packaging Requirements

9) Security Requirements

10) Export Licence


Part 2, Evidence of project planning

1) Project schedule

2) WBS, PBS

3) Budgets

4) Task instructions

5) Procurement plan

6) Manufacture, Assy and Test plan

7) Risk Register & Plan

8) Dates align with Contract dates

9) Key Event Milestones

10) Resource plan.


Part 3, Progress against the Plan

1) Project progress

2) Confidence in dates

3) Logical critical path

4) Metrics/KPIs in place

5) Budgets not exceeded

6) Risks being managed

7) Risks reviewed

8) Sub-contractor management

9) Technical issues being managed

10) Overall confidence in meeting contract


SH1200241636 V0.05

Results of Reviews, sampleResults of Reviews, sample


Part 1, 1

Part 1, 1

0

25

50

75

100Requirements

Scope of supply

Acceptance

Ts & Cs

Delivery Dates

Interfaces

Quality

Packaging

Security

Export License

ProjectAverage

Results UID 243121


SH1200241636 V0.05

Overall FindingsOverall Findings


Findings, Process

• Process in place for 12+ months, now accepted.• Process also used/initiated where Senior

Management has sensed problems in a project.• Approach by Reviewer(s) influences the success/

benefits of the review.– Constructive not critical approach is key – A platform for PM’s to be very open

• Is an opportunity to coach and share experiences.– Assistance in the resolution of issues


Findings, Results

• Has identified instances/areas where PM needed support – that otherwise may not been identified.

• Where low scores seen, opportunities to improve how project is run have been proposed.

• Has seen PM’s increase their skill level / performance.

• Not in anyone’s interest to over score or hold anything back.

• Health Warning – Technical matters not reviewed


Conclusion

• The process has demonstrated to be beneficial and will continue.

• Are currently involving more Reviewers – So that the process gets further embedded– And they get an opportunity to see other projects.

• Beginning to see more consistency • But doesn’t prevent some projects from

struggling


SH1200241636 V0.05

Any Questions?Any Questions?

babcock international group plc sh1200241636 v0.05 project status reviews apm swwe event,...

Documents

clear evidence evidence

process process

evidence of project

babcock se

meaningful evidence

sample slide

status review process

pm slide