Project Management for Complex Investigations

Sharon Loder

Executive Director Investigation Division

Independent Commission Against Corruption

Presentation delivered at the

11th National Investigations Symposium

Four Season Hotel Sydney

Wednesday 9 November 2016

Introduction

Many investigation policies require management practices that are based on project

management principles. However in practice, the management of complex investigations

presents real challenges for this ideal. By complex, I am referring to those investigations that

do, or have the potential to involve multiple parties, multiple allegations, composite subject

matter or significant and wide-ranging systemic issues. The management of anything but a

simple investigation can be a chaotic and variable progression toward a destination of unknown

timeframe, cost and scope, to say little of the additional complications involved in managing a

number of these investigations simultaneously.

Some of the challenges for the management of complex investigations are well understood:

inadequate or absent planning practices

poor decision making

problems with teamwork and communication

investigation policies and procedures are lacking, or not understood

there are no systems, or inadequate ones to manage large volumes of information and

data

or team members do not have sufficient expertise in the particular subject matter of the

investigation or the right forensic expertise is not available.

1

While some of these problems may arise due to a lack of appropriate resources, some are also

the inevitable product of traditional investigation management frameworks. Often there is a

misfit between the systems and processes traditionally used to manage investigation activity

and the actual nature and flow of that activity.

About three years ago at the Commission, we began to look very closely at this problem. This

led us on a journey, still in progress, of significant change in the way we understand the

lifecycle of an investigation as a project and the project management principles and practices

that are best suited to that lifecycle.

This presentation is about the key things we learned along the way. There were some

investigation management practices we were already applying but just did not fully appreciate

why they worked. There were other management practices we knew we needed to change

because they were not working that well but we didn’t fully appreciate why. I hope some of the

insights we gained in the process may be of interest and benefit to you in the context of your

own organisation and its investigative work.

Although this presentation is about the management of complex investigations, many of the

principles we will look at are equally important for not so complex investigations.

The traditional investigation management model

There is almost a universal approach to applying project management principles to the conduct

of an investigation. Indeed, the Australian Government Investigation Standards,1 clause 3.1

states:

3.1 Investigation Management

Agencies must employ investigation management procedures which are based

on project management principles of managing resources, processes, work to be

undertaken, time and outcomes.

1 Australian Government Investigation Standards 2011, https://www.ag.gov.au/CrimeAndCorruption/FraudControl/Documents/AGIS%202011.pdf

2

The application of project management principles to the conduct of an investigation would

seem quite appropriate but what kinds of project management principles are best suited to

that exercise?

The majority of project management practices for investigations are based on assumptions

about the fit between an investigation lifecycle and a traditional project lifecycle.

A traditional project lifecycle is a plan driven process that as a generalisation, is depicted in this

model:

However, when we try to apply a traditional project management model to anything but a very

simple investigation, we immediately encounter problems.

Firstly, it is in the nature of a complex investigation that the investigation scope and purpose,

and therefore the outcomes to be realised from its conduct, is highly variable throughout the

investigation lifecycle. This variation occurs along the way as we uncover additional subject

areas and allegations that require further exploration. Those additional subject areas and

allegations require further planning and re-planning, and resources and time-frames are

adjusted as the priorities of the investigation shift to accommodate them.

3

Secondly, all or most of the detailed planning for an investigation is unable to be undertaken up

front because there is insufficient information at the beginning of an investigation to support a

plan driven approach. The traditional project management model is based on an assumption

that the information needed to inform the scope and purpose of an investigation, its

completion, timeframe and resources is available at the initiation and planning phases and that

conducting the investigation is then a matter of executing the plan, and monitoring and

controlling compliance with it. Although procedures may require the investigation plans to be

regularly updated, my own experience is that the investigation plan created at the start of an

investigation is rarely revisited once approved by management, and thereafter it is relegated to

an historical record of where it all began, and one that bears only a basic resemblance to where

it all ended.

In reality, an investigation as a project is empirically based, and empirically based projects

require a project management model that is flexible and responsive to changing circumstances

and requirements. In other words, the project management model for a complex investigation

needs to be “agile”.

Agile project management principles

Although the word “agile” was not specifically adopted in connection with incremental project

management methodologies until the early 2000s, agile project management concepts had

their genesis in the late 1990’s in the area of software development at a time when it was

increasingly obvious that traditional project management methods were unsuited to creative,

empirically based projects.

Today there are numerous commercially developed and applied agile project management

models. At the Commission we considered and explored a number of models and then focused

on a particular model for training and implementation purposes that is both scalable and suited

to our particular operational environment. All models however, are based on some universally

understood principles for agile project management.

4

There are three ways to conceptualise an investigation as a project that are fundamental to

understanding the how agile project management principles might apply to investigations:

firstly, how an investigation as a project, is a series of decisions

secondly, how an investigation as a project, fits within the broader framework and

systems of an agency

and thirdly, how an investigation as a project, is a progression of phases

An investigation as a series of decisions

In conducting an investigation and planning operational activities, we are necessarily making

many decisions. If we understand an investigation as a series of decisions, working toward

achieving a defined operational objective, then our success in achieving that objective at all, or

in a timely way, will depend on the appropriateness of those decisions.

Agile project principles recognise that decision making within a project needs to be responsive

and informed. This equally applies to our operational decision-making. “Responsive” means

that when undertaking an investigation we need to have the ability to react to changing

circumstances. “Informed” means that operational decisions are made with relevant, current

and up-to-date information.

In a traditional plan driven project management model, because the focus is on up-front

planning, it is also therefore focused on up-front decision-making. However, an agile model

allows for decisions to be made closest in time to when the decision is required. There are of

course some decisions in an investigation that really do need to be made up front, but an agile

model recognises that many key decisions will be need to be made in the course of an

investigation when, as a result of what has been discovered during the investigation, the right

information is available to inform quality and timely decisions.

Good decision-making is not just about having good information, it is also about being able to

assess and evaluate the information within the correct context. Agile principles focus on

5

maximising our awareness and understanding of the context for decision making so that we can

correctly apply, use and interpret the content of the information as it is presented.

There are two important elements of context for an investigation: The first is the business case

for the investigation. The second is the cumulative content of what has been discovered and

learned in the investigation at the relevant decision point. Agile principles support a

management and governance model that ensures these two elements of context are given

appropriate attention when investigation decisions are made.

The business case for an investigation:

What do we mean by the “Business Case” for an investigation? The Business Case for an

investigation is the justification for it from an organisational perspective. In ordinary terms, it

answers the value question of, “Why are we doing this? What are we seeking to accomplish

here?”, or “What is our purpose?” Our understanding of the value in conducting the

investigation is directly tied to the resources (and methods) we are prepared to expend to

achieve that value.

If the business case for an investigation is not spelt out or it is too weakly defined, investigation

decision-making will occur without reference to it as an important element of context and the

investigation decision-making is likely to be chaotic, inefficient or inconsistent. This is why the

business case or the value justification for an investigation is not only of strategic concern but

has direct and important operational implications. I will say more about this last point a little

later.

The cycle of operational decision- making

The second important element of context can be understood within the cycle of operational

decision making. In an agile project model, decision-making is part of a cycle of discrete

planned activity involving steps that are repeated over and over until we are satisfied we have

achieved an appropriate outcome. That cycle is depicted in this model.

6

In some agile project models each cycle of this activity is called a “sprint”. Each “sprint” is

defined by a period of time, usually around 4 weeks, at the end of which feedback is provided

on what was achieved and learned during the sprint.

Let’s consider more closely what each step in the cycle involves:

In speculating and planning, we use informed prediction because prediction is necessary

if the information we have is insufficient to form a comprehensive plan. It requires us to

decide what to explore, and preparing for the possibility of finding what we speculated

we might find. In an investigation we speculate about the value of doing things like

interviewing particular witnesses or executing a search warrant, we decide what to do,

plan to do it and also plan for what we might discover in doing it.

In exploring and learning, we gather information and evidence through the application

of those investigation practices we planned to do.

In reviewing and adapting we assess the content of what was gathered in our exploring

and learning and also how well we undertook that process. Armed with that

information, we complete the cycle by asking whether the investigation is still on the

right track and is being undertaken in the best way. We ask what we are going to do

differently next based on the information we now have, as opposed to what we started

7

with. We make decisions about these things and what we have learned, and then feed

those back into our next cycle of speculating and planning so that our operational

planning is fully integrated into the evolving investigation.

Following these steps within each cycle of activity and engaging the cycles in a deliberative way,

ensures we develop a strong context for our operational decision-making because in that way

the content of the investigation, what we have gathered and learned from it, is incrementally

and cumulatively invested into that process.

An investigation within the organisation framework

When we conduct an investigation, the management, planning and conduct of that

investigation takes place at different levels within an organisation’s structure and systems. If we

understand that an investigation as a project involves activities that occur at different layers in

an agency with people in those layers performing different roles, then our success in

conducting and managing the investigation, depends upon how well those activities and roles

are aligned with and supported by the broader framework and systems of the organisation.

Agile project principles recognise four layers within a project where discrete roles and activities

sit.

8

The governance layer

The governance layer is concerned with the Executive, executive decisions and strategy. At this

layer in the project, the executive deal with multiple investigations, other projects and

organisational priorities. In this layer the Executive is primarily concerned with return on

investment or the net gain after the investment of resources. At the executive layer, concern is

with the value justification or business case for an investigation and the prioritisation of limited

resources. The strategic focus here on resources is not so much, “what have we got to work

with?” but “what are we doing with that?” This is because we all generally have to work with

fixed budgets and time frames limited by service delivery standards.

Decisions about which matters should be accepted for, or made the subject of an investigation,

the scope or changes in the scope of an investigation, and whether to continue or close an

investigation are governance decisions that involve important considerations such as balancing

strategic risks and opportunities, and prioritising and determining the commitment of

significant agency resources. It is important then that an agency’s investigation policy and

procedural framework ensures that these decisions are made only at the appropriate level and

decision makers have access to the kind of information about the investigation that will actually

assist and is relevant for making those decisions.

The project management layer

The project management layer is concerned with the overall management of one or more

investigations, how an investigation is delivering value for the agency and feeding that back into

the governance layer. This layer is primarily concerned with directors or managers and they are

concerned whether appropriate day to day management decisions are being made at

operational level and communicating feedback from the governance layer. It is also important

here that an agency’s policy and procedural framework ensures that decision makers at this

level have access to the right kind of information about the investigation in order to make those

decisions.

9

The operational layer

The operational layer is where the value in undertaking the investigation is created on an

ongoing basis. This is where investigation team members are involved in the cyclic process of

speculating/planning, learning/exploring, and reviewing/adapting. In this layer the involvement

of the investigation team leaders is important and is where team leadership and the day to day

management of people is important. This layer is where most things happen in the

investigation.

Earlier I mentioned how a clear statement of the business case for an investigation is a key

contextual element for good operational decision making. It is equally important that there is a

shared understanding, between the governance, management and operational personnel,

about the business case for any particular investigation, and there is a correct translation of

that understanding down and feedback up through each of these layers. The commitment and

focus of the investigation team to the investigation will be greater when everyone understands

what they are contributing and how they are adding value, both at a strategic and operational

level.

The technical layer

The technical layer of an investigation is concerned with how particular technical activities or

discrete investigation practices are carried out or should be carried out according to the

particular requirements of the investigation. In this layer, individuals, either working alone, or

together, apply specialist skills or techniques. Examples may include the forensic analysis of

documents or obtaining and executing a search warrant.

Summary

It is important to understand this layered concept of activity taking place within an investigation

because there are different kinds of decision-making that occur within each layer and that

requires different kinds of information to inform those decisions. Investigation policies,

procedures and systems need to support appropriate communication between the different

10

layers of activity, whether that communication is informal or found in investigation progress

reports and formal briefings.

Also, in some agencies, individuals, as a matter of necessity or function can be involved in all

four layers of the investigation activity at different times. This kind of situational role definition

comes with real risk and individuals involved in that way need to understand how performing

roles in multiple layers may affect good decision-making. Most project management models,

whether traditional or agile, have rules about certain project roles not being performed by the

same individual but this may be unavoidable in some organisations because of their size or

particular function. The reasons for this role separation are quite obvious:

The information (or content) and context for good decision making within each layer is

not the same. So that for example, the information and context you are working with,

in the governance layer, is invariably inadequate for good decision making in the

operational or technical layer and the alternative is also true.

Also, role confusion results in misunderstandings in communication. For example, any

communication by an individual whose primary role sits within the governance layer will

necessarily be understood as a direction, irrespective of the layer in which that

communication occurred and irrespective of whether it was in fact intended as

conveying an actual decision or direction.

It is therefore important that policies, procedures and systems for communication and

reporting recognise and are designed to reduce these risks.

An investigation as a progression of phases

Like any project, an investigation doesn’t just automatically start because a complaint has been

made. There is usually a process for determining which complaints will be investigated and

which complaints will be dealt with in alternative ways or whether no further action will be

taken at all. Also, when an investigation is completed, there are outcomes from that

investigation that require additional work, follow-up and monitoring. Prosecution or disciplinary

actions may result or procedural or policy recommendations need to be implemented. This

11

means that in the complete lifecycle of an investigation as a project, there are important

activities that occur before the investigation commences and also after it ends.

If we understand an investigation as a project involving a progression of phases, then our

success in concluding the investigation in a timely way with the right outcomes depends upon

how well we have structured and aligned those phases to ensure the investigation progresses in

an orderly way toward that end.

Agile project principles recognise that the phases of a project should be structured to support

the creation of a firm foundation for its establishment, incremental development and delivery

of the solution, and the realisation of the benefits from its completion.

There are varying frameworks for the complete lifecycle of an agile project. Some frameworks

only deal with part of the project lifecycle but there are some common themes that apply.

12

Pre-Project

The pre-project phase of an agile project is primarily concerned with assessing opportunities for

commencing a project that will deliver an outcome to satisfy a particular business need or

benefit to the business.

For an investigation, this phase is represented in those processes and procedures within an

agency that are designed to identify and determine which complaints or matters should be

made the subject of an investigation. The objective of this phase is to ensure only the right

opportunities are identified and having been identified, those matters proceed to the next

phase on the basis of a clearly defined objective. These are questions with which the executive

or governance layer should ordinarily be concerned as they not only involve technical

considerations, but include balancing strategic risks and opportunities, and prioritising and

determining the commitment of significant agency resources.

Feasibility

The feasibility phase of an agile project is primarily concerned with whether the project is likely

to be achievable, from a technical perspective, is cost effective from a business perspective and

there are appropriate options for its delivery and management.

For an investigation, this phase is represented in those procedures within an agency, if they

exist, that require some kind of preliminary investigation or fact finding process. The objective

of this phase is to gather the right information to inform a decision as to whether there is a

sound business case for conducting a more complete investigation or whether the matter

should be dealt with another appropriate way.

This phase requires consideration as to whether an investigation is likely to be productive, if so,

what kind of strategies and resources would be required to deliver it and over what time frame,

and whether the investment of those resources is justifiable having regard to relevant strategic

considerations, risks and priorities. The ultimate determination of these issues concern the

13

executive or governance layer and if in the analysis, a more complete investigation is justified,

at the end of this phase, a high level delivery plan for the investigation should be identified and

approved.

Delivery

The delivery phase of an agile project is concerned with actually creating or generating products

or results that can be applied to achieve the project outcomes. The products of the project may

be delivered and put into use incrementally but the products themselves evolve or come into

existence through those repeated cycles of planning, exploration and review.

For an investigation, this phase concerns the application of investigation practices to collect

information and evidence, analyse it and organise it into discrete products (for example, a

report or a brief) that can be applied (for example, in a prosecution) to produce outcomes for

the investigation.

The agile methodology involves those structured, regular cycles of planning, exploration and

review. It involves reporting progress up and receiving feedback down from the governance or

executive layer, on whether what has been produced in each period of effort is still delivering

the desired objectives of the investigation, that resources are being efficiently and effectively

deployed, that the investigation effort is focused and responsive to the significant issues

identified and there is appropriate progress and completion in line with expectations.

Post project

The post project phase of an agile project involves applying or using the results of the project

and monitoring and evaluating outcomes. As these outcomes are achieved, they generate

change that if measured are the tangible benefits from having undertaken the project.

For an investigation, post investigation activities for an agency typically involve taking action

recommended as a result of an investigation. That may involve formal proceedings or

implementing recommendations for procedural or organisation change. It should also involve

undertaking an assessment of the investigation itself – not just whether it achieved its

14

objectives but how well the investigation was undertaken and whether there are any lessons to

be learned or there are opportunities for improvement.

Close

After the closure of a project there are no further project related activities to be undertaken

but the benefits of undertaking the project may continued to be realised and there are

opportunities to either formally or informally consider or assess those benefits.

For an investigation, benefits assessments are not usually undertaken in a formal way unless a

specific recommendation for procedural change included a future review requirement. More

often than not, the benefits of previous investigation outcomes are only evaluated or

considered when a similar complaint arises in the future. Benefits assessments do take time

and resources but they reveal important lessons, whether of a positive nature or otherwise,

that can feedback into the assessment of opportunities and the feasibility processes for future

investigations.

Conclusion

All agencies that undertake investigation work operate within different jurisdictional and legal

environments. This means there are different constraints and opportunities that influence how

each agency undertakes its investigation work. However, there are common challenges faced

by all in meeting expectations to take up investigation options in the right circumstances and

deliver the best outcomes within the time and resources allocated.

I hope at least some of the things covered in this presentation may be of assistance to you in

understanding in a practical way, how project management principles might be applied in the

context of your organisation and its investigation work and how you might structure your own

policies, processes and reporting requirements to accommodate them.

15

Acknowledgements:

2014 Charles Sturt University, IT Masters, course materials, Agile Project Management

2015 University of Sydney Centre for Continuing Education, course materials, Project

Management Essentials

2015 DSDM Consortium, Agile Project Management Handbook V2.

16