designing projects for success by tim banfield
TRANSCRIPT
Designing projects for success
Tim Banfield
Director
National Audit Office
June 2013
I will cover:
• Initiating Successful Projects;• Common features of projects:
• Strategic importance and politics;• Stakeholders (influencers and the delivery
chain);• Success.
• Optimism and risk.
There are plenty of examples of good project planning and execution………
Few could have envisaged how successful the London 2012 Games would turn out to be. The construction programme was completed on time and within budget, 11 million tickets were sold and our athletes excelled. Crucially, the Games passed off without major transport disruption or security incident. Taken as a whole, the Games were a success by any reasonable measure and it looks as if not all of the Funding Package will be used.
……. and not just capital projects
• Severe timescale and political pressures
• Variety of options tested
• Due diligence• Uncertainties managed
Five factors influencing successful delivery
Ten traits
The delivery cycle
Concept
Planning
Evaluation & sharing
lessons learnt
Execution
Implementation Cycle
Citizen
Lobby Groups
Parliament
Media
InternationalBodies
Third Sector
Local Government
Civil Service
Commercial
POLICY ASPIRATION
SUSTAINABLE BENEFICIAL OUTCOMES
Process Change
Cultural Change
INF
LU
EN
CE
RS
DE
LIV
ER
ER
S
Information – financial and management
Governance – Portfolio & Risk Management
Capacity
Political context
Public Accounts Committee on Mobile Policing
"How did it ever get to be in such a spaghetti-like mess?“
“I cannot quite get why you could not build the experience of the trials into the management of the project”
Census 2011
Learned lessons from the 2001 Census and applied them to good effect:• Risk management;• Testing and piloting;• Stakeholder engagement.
The Norwegian Approach
The Norwegian Concept Programme
Analysis - initiation freq
Alternative concepts have not been scrutinised 16 64%
Lack of realistic objectives and justification 14
Project not relevant in relation to needs/market 14
Tactical underestimation of costs 10
Perverse incentives – benefits without liability 8
Tactical splitting up and sequencing of project 7
Tactical overestimation of needs and benefits 6
Underestimation of future operational costs 6
Decisions - delivery
Major predictable surprises 15
Sound advice overlooked by political preferences 11
Lacking transparency affecting public debate 7
Long lasting front end phase with shifting priorities 6
Political horse-trading between competing parties 5
Repeated play-off in political decision process 3
Source: Knut Samset
Stakeholders: common themes
Influencers:• Actively managing expectations had positive consequences; • Failure to engage with all parties who can influence the delivery of your
project causes problems.
The delivery chain:• A failure to work well with the deliverers was a common problem
experienced in less successful projects.• Not having the commercial skills to engage effectively with contractors. • The nature of the relationship with the contractor has a significant bearing
on the successful delivery of the project.
Impact on performance (ranking)
Indicator Time Cost Defects
Mutual objectives 8 7 4
Gain and pain sharing 2 9 8
Trust 10 6 2
No-blame culture 4 3 6
Joint working 1 10 3
Communication 9 1 5
Problem-solving 6 5 1
Risk allocation 3 2 7
Performance measurement 7 4 9
Continuous improvement 4 8 10
Source: International Journal of Project Management, Issue 30, Volume 2, 2012
Strong working relationships deliver better results
Quadrant 3
40
30
20
10
0
-10
-20
-20 -10 10 20 30 40 60 50 100 90 80 70
1
2
4
6
Quadrant 4 Quadrant 1
Quadrant 2
7
Percentage cost overrun since approval
Delay (months) since approval3
8
5
Success
2. Outcomes
How will a project be used to deliver these benefits?
Impact Relevance Take -up
3. Outputs
What?
Performance Time Cost Quality
1. Benefits
Why? Identify the value added to society(realisation of policy) Sustainability Satisfies needs Economic effects
CAUSES
PROJECT UNDERTAKEN ON UNREALISTIC BASIS
WEAKNESS IN PLANNING• Inadequate planning time allowed• Incomplete understanding (complexity and uncertainty)• Lack of consultation• Under-developed scope• Poor risk management process• Lack of contingency• Weaknesses in use of data and modelling
BEHAVIOURAL- Inherent optimism: planning fallacy, over-confidence, ignoring past experience-Strategic misrepresentation: e.g. to gain project approval, self-promotion- Internal culture: hiding bad news, ignoring advice
EXTERNAL CONSTRAINTS
- Political and budgetary cycle: scope change, financial pressures- Political pressure: policy and announcements made prior to planning
SYMPTOMS
OUTCOME
CAPABILITY
- Lack of skills/experience - Resource pressure e.g. high turnover
RISK TO VALUE FOR MONEY
AC
CO
UN
TAB
ILIT
Y: A
SS
UR
AN
CE
AN
D S
CR
UT
INY
Tim Banfield
Tel: +44 20 7798 7662
Fax: +44 20 7798 7588
E-mail: [email protected]
Website: www.nao.org.uk