p3m3 assessment report - department of human services

P3M3™ Assessment Report

Australian Government, Centrelink

Version

1.3 (Final)

Date Created

Wednesday, 10 March 2010

Date Updated

Thursday, 6 May 2010

Confidentiality Statement

Information in this document must be kept confidential as per its classification below, and the rules of disclosure.

All documents within Tanner James Management Consultants are classified in the following way. PUBLIC documents are

intended for anyone, COMMERCIAL IN CONFIDENCE documents are to be kept

confidential between restricted individuals within Tanner James Management

Consultants and partner organisations. COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL documents are to be kept confidential within Tanner James

Management Consultants, and used for normal business activities by the general

office population; HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL documents are to be kept confidential to

restricted individuals within Tanner James Management Consultants.

This document is uncontrolled if printed.

© Tanner James Management Consultants. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored

in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the

written permission of Tanner James Management Consultants.

Classification

Commercial In Confidence

P3M

3™

Assessm

ent

Rep

ort

Document Control

Classification Commercial In Confidence

Task Centrelink P3M3™

Version 1.3 Author Tanner James

of 27

Created 22 April 2010 Updated 11 May 2010

Distribution List

Name Position Organisation

Eija Seittenranta General Manager Centrelink Applications

Centrelink

Trevor Burgess Chief Finance Officer Centrelink

Gabrielle Morrison External Relations Mgr APMG

Ian McDermott Registered P3M3™ Consultant

Tanner James

Revision History

Date Version Modified By Changes Made, Review History

12/04/10 1 Ken Welham Original version

14/04/10 1.1 Ken Welham Update following review by Ian McDermott (RegCons) and Claude Ripoll (RegCons)

This is a draft pending provision of evidence for benefit realisation at project level. Process evidence has been sighted as well as an Oct 2007 scorecard report (status unidentified) from the IT Refresh Program showing financial benefits tracking ahead of plan, however data has not yet been sighted to support a score of 2 for benefits management from the Project sub-model rating.

21/04/10 1.2 Ken Welham Incorporation of project benefits management evidence (see v1.1 notes above).

22/04/10 1.3 Ken Welham Final incorporating APMG feedback.

Contents




of 27


Executive Summary................................................................................................................... 4

1 Purpose.............................................................................................................................. 7

2 Scope................................................................................................................................. 7

2.1 Inclusions................................................................................................................. 7 2.2 Exclusions................................................................................................................ 7 2.3 Assessment Background......................................................................................... 7 2.4 Assessment Approach............................................................................................. 8

3 Current P3M3™ Ratings.................................................................................................... 9

3.1 Maturity Summary.................................................................................................... 9 3.2 Portfolio Management Maturity Description .......................................................... 10 3.3 Programme Management Maturity Description..................................................... 12 3.4 Project Management Maturity Description ............................................................ 14

4 Recommended Target P3M3™ Ratings.......................................................................... 16

4.1 Programme Management – Target Rating 3 recommendations ........................... 16 4.2 Project Management – Target Rating 3 recommendations................................... 18

5 Maturing of Specific Attributes ......................................................................................... 21

5.1 Programme Management – Level 1 to Level 2 ..................................................... 21 5.2 Programme Management – Level 2 to Level 3 ..................................................... 21 5.3 Project Management – Level 2 to Level 3 ............................................................. 23

Appendix A – P3M3™ Overview .............................................................................................. 25





of 27


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

An APMG compliant P3M3™ Assessment of Centrelink’s ICT-enabled change portfolio and constituent programmes and projects has been conducted during March and April 2010. The following P3M3™ Ratings have been derived from that assessment by way of interviewing selected Centrelink staff and reviewing documentation in terms of both centrally defined guidance for management practices and information from programmes and projects. 24 individuals were interviewed to assess the maturity of portfolio, programme and project management practices. Documentary evidence from the CPO intranet site and from individual programmes and projects were examined in detail in addition to prior ANAO Audit Reports.

Centrelink’s current P3M3™ Rating is assessed as:

• Current Rating 2 in the Portfolio Management sub-model. Centrelink Executive committees ensure that the change portfolio is directed and prioritised according to their requirements. Some aspects, such as Resource Management, are not defined and managed consistently;

• Current Rating 1 in the Programme Management sub-model. Centrelink does recognise programmes, however the central guidance (CPO intranet site including the CPMF) for programme management is essentially project management with an additional governance layer, therefore there is insufficient guidance for key programme concepts such as programme risk management and future state definition and management; and

• Current Rating 2 in the Project Management sub-model. Centrelink ICT ensures that each project is managed according to the CPMF (Centrelink Project Management Framework), however Business areas do not apply the CPMF consistently.

These current programme and project management ratings are not inconsistent with previous ANAO Audit Reports, specifically Audit Report No. 17 2007-08 Management of the IT Refresh Programme and Audit Report No. 28 2006-07 Project Management in Centrelink.

Tanner James recommends that Centrelink set target P3M3 ratings of 3 for both Programme Management and Project Management and that, given the timing of the DHS integration, Portfolio Management should not be targeted for a higher rating.

Centrelink should target level 3 maturity in Programme Management because:

• Centrelink undertakes a volume of large, risky initiatives; and

• The people who are governing and managing these initiatives have to work out the processes for doing so without the benefit of a centrally defined framework that addresses key differences between programme and project management.

Centrelink should target level 3 maturity in Project Management because:

• There is a substantial investment in the Centrelink Project Management Framework (CPMF) that is not delivering its potential benefits. This is largely due to lower CPMF usage in Business areas as opposed to ICT areas; and

• Improvement in the CPMF and its use will increase the likelihood of project success.





of 27


0

1

2

3

4

5

Managem

ent

Control

Benefits

Managem

ent

Financial

Managem

ent

Sta

keholder

Managem

ent

Risk

Managem

ent

Org

anisatio

nal

Govern

ance

Resourc

e

Managem

ent

Portfolio Management – current rating 2

0

1

2

3

4

5

Managem

ent

Control

Benefits

Managem

ent

Financial

Managem

ent

Sta

keholder

Managem

ent

Risk

Managem

ent

Org

anisatio

nal

Govern

ance

Resourc

e

Managem

ent

Programme Management – current rating 1





of 27


0

1

2

3

4

5

Managem

ent

Control

Benefits

Managem

ent

Financial

Managem

ent

Sta

keholder

Managem

ent

Risk

Managem

ent

Org

anisatio

nal

Govern

ance

Resourc

e

Managem

ent

Project Management – current rating 2





of 27


1 PURPOSE The purpose of this assessment report is to:

• Report upon an APMG compliant P3M3™ Assessment for Centrelink’s ICT-enabled initiatives covering Portfolio, Programme and Project Management maturity assessment;

• Document Centrelink’s current P3M3™ Ratings;

• Document Tanner James’ recommended target P3M3™ Ratings;

• Provide visibility of the statements which would have to be judged as true regarding Centrelink’s ICT-enabled change initiatives to achieve the P3M3™ Ratings recommended by Tanner James; and

• Document Tanner James’ thoughts on specific management attributes that could be addressed in improving Centrelink’s capability maturity.

2 SCOPE

2.1 Inclusions

The P3M3™ assessment covered the portfolio, programme and project activities across Centrelink. This included sampling sufficient programmes and projects to create a representative sample set for the Centrelink change portfolio. The work covered both ICT and Business run projects and programmes. In total 24 staff were interviewed, noting that the original plan was to interview 27 people. The variances from the original plan were:

• One person was unavailable during the interview process so was engaged in the context of capability improvement planning rather than current assessment;

• One person was engaged in the programme sub-model however insufficient common ground existed to form a reasonable view of programme management practices so the interview was terminated in the introductory step;

• One project manager was unavailable during the interview process and was not re-scheduled; and

• One person was interviewed against the Project rather than Programme sub-model because their most recent and substantial undertaking was a project not a programme.

All changes were agreed by the Assessment Sponsor, Eija Seittenranta, without compromising the sample set required for AMPG external validation.

2.2 Exclusions No areas of Centrelink were excluded from the assessment.

2.3 Assessment Background This P3M3™ assessment has been triggered in response to the Department of Finance and Deregulation’s directive that Commonwealth Government agencies undertake P3M3™ maturity assessments and plan for improvement of their capability to realise benefits from ICT-enabled initiatives.





of 27


2.4 Assessment Approach

Prior to conducting interviews, Tanner James made an assessment of current documentation of management processes to gain initial understand of what was and wasn’t documented as well as a view of how initiatives (portfolios, programmes and projects) should be managed. During and at the conclusion of interviews documentation for specific initiatives was reviewed on-line and in print.

For this assessment Centrelink’s entire scope of ICT-enabled change was treated as a single Portfolio. Interviews were conducted with individuals in the roles of Portfolio Director, Investment Committee Member and Head of Portfolio Office.

The interviews were conducted with individuals at the programme and project levels. Many of the people interviewed had been involved in multiple programmes and projects during their career at Centrelink; this has enriched the assessment given interviewees’ breadth of experience. Often questions were answered in terms such as “we alwaysG” or “in about half of my projects IG”.

Tanner James spent approx 150 hours effort in;

• The assessment of process documentation including the:

o Centrelink Project Management Framework (CPMF) Manual 2009 v1.1;

o Centrelink Project Governance Framework Version 1.1 Nov 2008;

o CPO intranet site;

• Interviewing Centrelink staff to gauge application of portfolio, programme and project management;

• Reviewing evidence of management practices from the change portfolio and individual projects and programmes; and

• Reviewing previous reports from ANAO audits as requested by Centrelink staff, specifically:

o ANAO Audit Report 17 2007-08 Management of the IT Refresh Programme; and

o ANAO Audit Report 28 2006-07 Project Management in Centrelink.





of 27


Section 3 details the current P3M3™ rating attained from Tanner James’ assessment of information gathered from interviewing over 20 individuals across Centrelink and an analysis of relevant process documentation. A description is provided from OGC’s P3M3™ model for each score attained.

Section 4 details the P3M3™ model statements that are currently true and the statements that would have to be rendered true for Centrelink to achieve the target P3M3™ ratings recommended by Tanner James for Portfolio, Programme and Project Management.

Section 5 documents Tanner James’ thoughts on specific management attributes that could be addressed in improving Centrelink’s capability maturity. These attributes underpin the “statements that would have to be rendered true” from Section 4.

Note : The Capability Improvement Plan (CIP) associated with this assessment documents Centrelink’s target P3M3™ ratings and how Centrelink intends to achieve those ratings.

3 CURRENT P3M3™ RATINGS

3.1 Maturity Summary

Process Perspectives

Sub-model

Score

Mana

ge

ment

Contr

ol

Ben

efits

Mana

ge

ment

Fin

ancia

l

Mana

ge

ment

Sta

keh

old

er

Mana

ge

ment

Ris

k

Mana

ge

ment

Org

anis

atio

nal

Govern

ance

Resourc

e

Mana

ge

ment

Generic

Attri

bute

s S

core

Portfolio Management

2 3 2 3 2 2 3 2 2

Programme Management

1 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2

Project Management

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Portfolio Management Sub-model

Level 2 - Centrelink Executive committees ensure that the change portfolio is directed and prioritised according to their requirements. Some aspects, such as Resource Management, are not defined and managed consistently.

Programme Management sub-model

Level 1 - Centrelink does recognise programmes, however the central guidance (i.e. CPO intranet site including the CPMF) for programme management is essentially project management with an additional governance layer, therefore there is insufficient guidance for key programme concepts such as future state definition and management.

Project Management sub-model

Level 2 - Centrelink ICT ensures that each project is managed according to the CPMF (Centrelink Project Management Framework), however Business areas do not apply the CPMF consistently.





of 27


3.2 Portfolio Management Maturity Description

Below are the key observations made by Tanner James during the Portfolio Management assessment. Following the observations are descriptions for each P3M3™ “process perspective” (seven of) and “generic attribute” (six of).

Key Observations

Centrelink does recognise the need for and have implemented governance arrangements to guide and oversee investment decisions. While portfolio management discipline exists within the agency, this is not part of a comprehensive and consistent organisation-wide approach to the management of all change initiatives (projects and programmes) as a prioritised and integrated set of investments that drive the realisation of benefits.

Management Control (Level 3)

Portfolio management processes are centrally defined, documented and understood, as are roles and responsibilities for delivery.

Benefits Management (Level 2)

The development of the investment cycle will increase the awareness of the importance of identifying benefits and subsequently tracking whether they have been realised. However, the realisation of benefits is still likely to be patchy, inconsistent and unmonitored.

Financial Management (Level 3)

There are established standards for the investment management process and the preparation of business cases. Portfolio investment costs are monitored and controlled.

Stakeholder Management (Level 2)

Portfolios will be communicated to stakeholders, but this is linked more to the personal initiative of portfolio manager(s) than to a structured approach deployed by the organisation.

Risk Management (Level 2)

There is generally a top-down approach to risk identification, focusing on major organisational initiatives, but some initiatives are increasingly carrying out bottom-up risk identification. However, these approaches are inconsistent, not particularly interrelated and often do not address the actual management of risks.

Organisational Governance (Level 3)

Centrally defined organisational controls are applied consistently to the portfolio(s), with decision-making structures in place and linked to organisational governance.

Resource Management (Level 2)

The organisation has started to develop portfolio resource management processes and improve the identification and allocation of resources to specific initiatives. However, this is likely to be reliant on key individuals and does not assess the impact of resource allocation against the strategic objectives and priorities.

Generic Attributes Score (Level 2)

Roles & Responsibilities. Level 2 is defined as roles, responsibilities and competencies defined in some areas but not consistently across the organisation.

Experience in Portfolio Management. Level 2 is defined as key individuals may have practical delivery experience and track record.

Capability development. Level 3 is defined as training is focused on the organisation’s approaches and raising competence of individuals in specific roles. Forums exist for sharing organisational experience to improve individual and organisational performance.





of 27


Planning & estimating processes. Level 3 is defined as plans developed to a central and consistent standard that is output or goal based. Plan development takes into account a range of relevant factors. Evidence of effective estimating techniques. Dependencies are identified, tracked and managed effectively.

Information & documentation. Level 2 is defined as focus on documentation during start-up and definition, but not maintained over initiative’s life cycle. Localised information structures, with some information sharing between teams. Limited localised information controls, with no formal release management arrangements.

Scrutiny & review. Level 3 is defined as independent reviews take place. Scrutiny largely for compliance reasons, identifying failures rather than opportunities for improvement.





of 27


3.3 Programme Management Maturity Description

Below are the key observations made by Tanner James during the Programme Management assessment. Following the observations are descriptions for each P3M3™ “process perspective” (seven of) and “generic attribute” (six of).

Key Observations – Programme Management specific

Centrelink’s programme management framework is essentially the same as for project management except that programmes are governed at SES Band 2 rather than Band 1.

Many of the key principles of Programme Management, including visioning, blueprinting, transition and benefits management, are not included in the CPMF and, hence, are not applied consistently. Some programmes are applying these principles however this is driven by individual experience and initiative rather than Centrelink’s framework.

Successful delivery of programmes is highly dependent upon a small pool of skilled and experienced managers who are determining their own management processes. These individual processes are not consistent and the CPMF does not capture their good practices.

There is confusion about the use of the terms “program” and “programme” in terms of their meaning and their implications for management processes and governance.

The role of Programme Manager is not defined in the CPMF or the Centrelink Project Governance Framework.

Key Observations – Programme and Project Management

Centrelink’s published guidance on programme and project management (i.e. in the CPMF) is seen as being ICT owned and driven, so application in Business is not as strong as in ICT.

The was no evidence that the approval to proceed with programmes and projects took into account the existing workload and capacity for additional work.

The business case ledger would be better balanced if benefit and stakeholder management received the same high degree of diligence as financial management.

Executive churn is negatively impacting the successful direction of programmes and projects due to inconsistency in requirements and scope throughout the programme/project lifecycle.

Poor scope definition and control is allowing stakeholders, from both Centrelink and other agencies, to hijack programmes and projects to accept additional scope without the provision of additional time or funding.

Some steering committees need to be more assertive in asking the relevant probing questions when examining programs and projects.

There is confusion over the role of CBISC given annual name changes and changes to its charter (e.g. some think it is still a decision making body rather than an assurance body to the CEC).

The Centrelink Program Office (CPO) staffing has been substantially reduced over recent years (down 75%) which has depleted their capability and capacity to proactively support programmes and projects.


Programme management terminology is used by some members of the organisation but not consistently, and possibly not understood by all stakeholders. Programmes are conducted and managed according to individual preferences.


Benefits are recognised as an element within programme business cases. There may be some documentation regarding who is responsible for particular benefits and their realisation, but this is unlikely to be followed through or consistent.





of 27



Programme business cases are produced in various forms and the better and more formal cases will present the rational on which to obtain organisational commitment to the programme. Overall cost of the programme is not monitored or fully accounted for.


Some programmes will be communicated to stakeholders, but this is linked more to the personal initiative of programme managers than to a structured approach being deployed by the organisation.


There is minimal evidence of risk management being used to any beneficial effect on programmes. There may be evidence of risks being documented but little evidence of active management.


Programme management from an organisational perspective is beginning to take shape but with ad hoc controls and no clear strategic control. Roles and responsibilities will be inconsistent, as will reporting lines.


Resources are being deployed across the organisation and individual programmes have an approach to resource acquisition, planning or management. However there is little evidence of consistency of approach



Experience in Programme Management. Level 2 is defined as key individuals may have practical delivery experience and track record.

Capability development. Level 2 is defined as generic training may be provided in key concepts, and there may be individuals undertaking qualification training. Local sharing of knowledge may exist but mostly ad hoc.

Planning & estimating processes. Level 2 is defined as plans exist but are not underpinned by consistent development methodology, yet may still be effective locally. Planning seen as activity tracking rather than proactive/forecasting. Estimation is more ‘guesstimation’ and does not use standard techniques.







of 27


3.4 Project Management Maturity Description

Below are the key observations made by Tanner James during the Project Management assessment. Following the observations are descriptions for each P3M3™ “process perspective” (seven of) and “generic attribute” (six of).

Key Observations – Project Management specific

There are differences in the way Business and ICT areas manage project funds. By way of contrast, managers in ICT are signing quarterly FMA Act documents aligned to the quarterly ICT releases while Tanner James saw no evidence of an equivalent process by project staff in the Business. During the interviews numerous Business representatives stated that they felt that ICT lacked flexibility around their project deliverables while Business remained much more agile and “can do”. ICT and Business representatives are insufficiently aware of the constraints and/or freedoms each other have within projects to be as sympathetic to one another as they could be.

The CPMF and other elements of the CPO intranet site are seen as hard to use in terms of content (e.g. “it is a mountain of processes and templates”) and navigation.

Managers understand that the CPO staffing is now 25% of what it was, however they feel there is a lack of support capacity from the CPO.

Some Business project managers are chosen for that role on the basis of their subject matter expertise without regard for relevant project management expertise and experience.

Some of the routine project status reports do not cover risks at all.

Transition into operational use is suffering from a lack of management attention. Subsequently, staff observe significant problems materialising post transition into production /BAU. This is particularly evident at the end of a project. Some interviewees suggested the introduction of an initial “warranty period” in production of perhaps 90 days during which the project team must support what they have implemented.

Key Observations – Programme and Project Management

Note: these observations are duplicated from the section above on Programme Management

Centrelink’s published guidance on programme and project management (i.e. in the CPMF) is seen as being ICT owned and driven, so application in Business is not as strong as in ICT.

The approval to proceed with programmes and projects does not appear to take into account existing workload and capacity for additional work.

The business case ledger would be better balanced if benefit and stakeholder management received the same diligence as financial management.

Executive churn is negatively impacting the direction of programmes and projects due to inconsistency in requirements and scope throughout the programme/project lifecycle.

Poor scope definition and control is allowing stakeholders to hijack programmes and projects to accept additional scope without the provision of additional time or funding.

Some steering committees are failing to confront the hard issues in programmes and projects and are too passive.

There is confusion over the role of CBISC given annual name changes and changes to its charter (e.g. some think it is still a decision making body rather than an assurance body to the CEC).

The Centrelink Program Office (CPO) staffing has been substantially reduced over recent years (down 75%).





of 27



The concepts of project management will have been grasped by some within the organisation, and there may be local experts, such as experienced project managers working on key projects.


Benefits are recognised as an element within project business cases. There is some documentation on who is responsible for particular benefits and their realisation.


Project business cases are produced in various forms and the better and more formal cases will present the rationale on which to obtain organisational commitment to the project. Overall cost of the project is not monitored or fully accounted for.


Projects will be communicating effectively, but this is linked more to personal initiative of programme and project managers than a structured approach being deployed by the organisation.


Risk management is recognised and used on projects, but there are inconsistent approaches, which result in different levels of commitment and effectiveness.


Project management from an organisational perspective is beginning to take shape but with ad hoc controls and no clear strategic control. Roles and responsibilities will be inconsistent, as will reporting lines.


Resources are being deployed across the organisation and individual projects have an approach to resource acquisition, planning or management. However there is little evidence of consistency of approach.



Experience in Project Management. Level 2 is defined as key individuals may have practical delivery experience and track record.









of 27


4 RECOMMENDED TARGET P3M3™ RATINGS

Tanner James recommends that Centrelink set target P3M3 ratings of 3 for both Programme Management and Project Management and that, given timing of the DHS integration, Portfolio Management should not be targeted for a higher rating. These Programme and Project Management ratings should be achieved in the next 12 to 18 months. Centrelink should target level 3 maturity in Programme Management because:

• Centrelink undertakes a volume of large, risky initiatives; and

• The people who are governing and managing these initiatives have to work out the processes for doing so without the benefit of a centrally defined framework that addresses key differences between programme and project management.

Centrelink should target level 3 maturity in Project Management because:

• There is a substantial investment in the Centrelink Project Management Framework (CPMF) that is not delivering its potential benefits. This is largely due to lower usage in Business areas as opposed to ICT areas; and

• Improvement in the CPMF and its use will decrease the likelihood of project failure.

4.1 Programme Management – Target Rating 3 recommendations The table below details the statements against each of the seven process perspectives and generic attributes that are currently true (column one) and that would need to be rendered true (column two) for Centrelink to achieve the Tanner James recommended target rating of 3 for Programme Management.

Current Rating 1 Target Rating 3

Management Control (Level 1) Programme management terminology is used by some members of the organisation but not consistently, and possibly not understood by all stakeholders. Programmes are conducted and managed according to individual preferences.

Management Control (Level 3) There is a centrally defined and documented approach to a programme management life cycle and controls, and it is applied in all programmes by capable staff that support programme teams.

Benefits Management (Level 2) Benefits are recognised as an element within programme business cases. There may be some documentation regarding who is responsible for particular benefits and their realisation, but this is unlikely to be followed through or consistent.

Benefits Management (Level 3) There is a centrally managed and consistent framework for defining and tracking the realisation of benefits arising from programme outcomes.

Financial Management (Level 2) Programme business cases are produced in various forms and the better and more formal cases will present the rational on which to obtain organisational commitment to the programme. Overall cost of the programme is not monitored or fully accounted for.

Financial Management (Level 3) There are centrally established standards for the preparation of business cases and processes for their management throughout the programme lifecycle. Programme managers monitor costs and expenditure in accordance with organisational guidelines and procedures, with defined interfaces with other financial functions within the organisation.

Stakeholder Management (Level 2) Some programmes will be communicated to stakeholders, but this is linked more to the personal initiative of programme managers than to a structured approach being deployed by the organisation.

Stakeholder Management (Level 3) There is a centrally managed and consistent approach to stakeholder engagement and communications used by all programmes.





of 27


Risk Management (Level 1) There is minimal evidence of risk management being used to any beneficial effect on programmes. There may be evidence of risks being documented but little evidence of active management.

Risk Management (Level 3) Programme risk management is based on a centrally defined process that is cognisant of the organisation’s policy for the management of risks and is used consistently.

Organisational Governance (Level 2) Programme management from an organisational perspective is beginning to take shape but with ad hoc controls and no clear strategic control. Roles and responsibilities will be inconsistent, as will reporting lines.

Organisational Governance (Level 3) Centrally defined organisational controls are applied consistently to the portfolio(s), with decision-making structures in place and linked to organisational governance.

Resource Management (Level 2) Resources are being deployed across the organisation and individual programmes have an approach to resource acquisition, planning or management. However there is little evidence of consistency of approach

Resource Management (Level 3) The organisation has a centrally defined and adopted set of procedures and management processes for acquiring, planning and managing programme resources.

Generic Attributes Score (Level 2) Roles & Responsibilities. Level 2 is

defined as roles, responsibilities and competencies defined in some areas but not consistently across the organisation.

Generic Attributes Score (Level 3) Roles & Responsibilities. Level 3 is

defined as centrally managed role definitions and sets of competencies defined and used to secure appointments.

Experience in Programme Management. Level 2 is defined as key individuals may have practical delivery experience and track record.

Experience in Portfolio Management. Level 3 is defined as key individuals have practical delivery experience and track record.


Capability development. Level 3 is defined as training is focused on the organisation’s approaches and raising competence of individuals in specific roles. Forums exist for sharing organisational experience to improve individual and organisational performance.


Planning & estimating processes. Level 3 is defined as plans developed to a central and consistent standard that is output or goal based. Plan development takes into account a range of relevant factors. Evidence of effective estimating techniques. Dependencies are identified, tracked and managed effectively.

Information & documentation. Level 2

is defined as focus on documentation during start-up and definition, but not maintained over initiative’s life cycle. Localised information structures, with some information sharing between teams. Limited localised information controls, with no formal release management arrangements.

Information & documentation. Level 3

is defined as information has a refresh cycle or is regularly accessed. Organisation-wide information standards on confidentiality, availability and integrity. Formal information release management procedures.


Scrutiny & review. (Level 3 already achieved)





of 27


4.2 Project Management – Target Rating 3 recommendations

The table below details the statements against each of the seven process perspectives and generic attributes that are currently true (column one) and that would need to be rendered true (column two) for Centrelink to achieve the Tanner James recommended target rating of 3 for Project Management.

Current Rating 2 Target Rating 3

Management Control (Level 2) The concepts of project management will have been grasped by some within the organisation, and there may be local experts, such as experienced project managers working on key projects.

Management Control (Level 3) There is a centrally defined and documented approach to a project management life cycle and controls, and it is applied in all projects by capable staff that support project teams.

Benefits Management (Level 2) Benefits are recognised as an element within project business cases. There is some documentation on who is responsible for particular benefits and their realisation.

Benefits Management (Level 3) Measures of project success are becoming defined and explicit. Common approach and processes that ensure consistency across all projects in relation to benefits measurement and realisation. Benefits management process described within project business case. Changes to project considered against impact on benefits. Common set of tools and templates used for benefits management activities, including their detailed statement. Benefits documents stored centrally and subject to change control. Detailed descriptions explaining how benefits will be achieved from project deliverables. Benefits calculated in financial terms against centrally managed assessment criteria. Clear responsibilities for benefits realisation cited in business cases. Post-project benefit reviews used to report formally on outcomes and benefit realisation.

Financial Management (Level 2) Project business cases are produced in various forms and the better and more formal cases will present the rationale on which to obtain organisational commitment to the project. Overall cost of the project is not monitored or fully accounted for.

Financial Management (Level 3) Standardised approach to project business case development. Business cases approved centrally, making budget limitations explicit. Issues and risks assessed in financial terms. Guidelines exist on costs to be included in, and excluded from, budgets. Projects have distinct budgets and expenditure against budget is tracked and reported on. Clearly defined authorities for expenditure levels, with cost and expenditure reported on using agreed templates or pro-forma reports. Contract placement using professional procurement support to ensure best value for money. Standard financial estimation and value for money techniques deployed consistently across projects. Business cases reviewed at explicit stages in project life cycle and actions taken to put projects back on track. Evidence of operational sign-off for any additional costs imposed by project. Capital and revenue costs accounted for differently. Centrally agreed project budgets, making it clear when and where funding will be available.





of 27


Stakeholder Management (Level 2) Projects will be communicating effectively, but this is linked more to personal initiative of programme and project managers than a structured approach being deployed by the organisation.

Stakeholder Management (Level 3) Centrally defined and consistent approach, and supporting process, for identifying and analysing stakeholders. Projects consider stakeholder needs and stakeholders are actively involved in decision-making. Corporate communications (or equivalent) are involved in development of stakeholder engagement processes and procedures. Stakeholders have authority and clearly defined roles within project. Audit trails of communications maintained for all projects. Structured, centrally managed communications plan balances communications from all projects. Communications channels vary and are used to target and deliver messages effectively. Communications budget exists. Much of this approach is provided by the permanent Project Office.

Risk Management (Level 2) Risk management is recognised and used on projects, but there are inconsistent approaches, which result in different levels of commitment and effectiveness.

Risk Management (Level 3) Standard risk management templates and tools used extensively and consistently. Risks identified, assessed and controlled in accordance with recognised procedures, across all projects. Regular reviews, addressing broader opportunities for improvement as well as compliance. Reviews seen as a positive opportunity to improve, not a threat. Risk management interventions embedded within project life cycle. Risks consistently categorised by type (e.g. commercial, operational or strategic). Audits of risk within projects. Processes exist for escalation of project risks. Risks not limited to internal impact on project goals. Risk assessment techniques defined and deployed consistently.

Organisational Governance (Level 2) Project management from an organisational perspective is beginning to take shape but with ad hoc controls and no clear strategic control. Roles and responsibilities will be inconsistent, as will reporting lines

Organisational Governance (Level 3) Common definition of Project Boards (or equivalent) & their key roles & responsibilities, which are in place on most projects unless there is a clear reason for them not to be. Central body monitors and influences progress of all projects and the optimal balance of current projects. Consolidated progress reporting on all projects. All key roles & responsibilities documented within individual directors’ terms of reference. Project ideas evaluated against consistent criteria prior to approval. Centralised decision making ensures that projects fit the organisation’s ongoing needs. Functional activities of sponsor or project executive can be demonstrated for all projects. Evidence of sponsor or project executives ensuring that projects maintain alignment with organisational strategy, with interventions as appropriate. Decisions are auditable. Clear reporting lines set and maintained. Legislative and regulatory requirements built into guidelines. Evidence of structured start-up and closure of projects under clear business control.





of 27


Resource Management (Level 2) Resources are being deployed across the organisation and individual projects have an approach to resource acquisition, planning or management. However there is little evidence of consistency of approach.

Resource Management (Level 3) Centrally defined & adopted set of procedures in place for resource management. Work to be carried out by third parties or contractors defined & planned in accordance with documented procedures and reviewed at key milestones or project stages. Frameworks in place with external market for provision of resources to meet shortages & expertise peaks. Resource utilisation tracking & productivity monitoring occasionally undertaken, using industry standard techniques. Resource planning undertaken in broadest sense, not limited to human resources. Some collaboration between project teams or recognition at organisational level of opportunities for sharing critical or limited resources. Potential issues arising from resource availability identified & escalated. Evidence of induction planning & activities when joining project teams.

Generic Attributes Score (Level 2) Roles & Responsibilities. Level 2 is defined as roles, responsibilities and competencies defined in some areas but not consistently across the organisation.

Generic Attributes Score (Level 3) Roles & Responsibilities. Level 3 is defined as centrally managed role definitions & sets of competencies defined & used to secure appointments.

Experience in Project Management. Level 2 is defined as key individuals may have practical delivery experience and track record.

Experience in Project Management. Level 3 is defined as key individuals have practical delivery experience and track record.

Capability development. Level 2 is

defined as generic training may be provided in key concepts, and there may be individuals undertaking qualification training. Local sharing of knowledge may exist but mostly ad hoc.

Capability development. Level 3 is

defined as training is focused on Centrelink’s approaches and raising competency of individuals in specific roles. Forums exist for sharing Centrelink experience to improve both individual & Centrelink performance.


Planning & estimating processes. Level 3 is defined as plans developed to a central & consistent standard that is output or goal based. Plan development takes into account a range of relevant factors. Evidence of effective estimating techniques. Dependencies are identified, tracked and managed effectively.


Information & documentation. Level 3 is defined as information has a refresh cycle or is regularly accessed. Organisation-wide information standardisation on confidentiality, availability and integrity. Formal information release management procedures.


Scrutiny & review. Already achieved

Level 3





of 27


5 MATURING OF SPECIFIC ATTRIBUTES

This section documents Tanner James’ thoughts on specific P3M3 management attributes that could be addressed in improving Centrelink’s capability maturity. These attributes underpin the “statements that would have to be rendered true” (i.e. the second column) from Section 4 above.

5.1 Programme Management – Level 1 to Level 2

Management Control

• Define a programme management “framework” that addresses the differences between best practice project management and programme management. Begin raising awareness of this framework and start using it;

• Ensure that the programme management framework defines the integration points between programme and project management; and

• Distinguish between operational (i.e. business as usual) “programs” and change “programmes”.

Risk Management

• This would largely be addressed by the actions above on the framework noting that the essence of Risk Management is no different for Projects and programmes however the process sequencing is different. For example, one of Centrelink’s more experienced programme management stakeholders described a process whereby risk assessment is firstly conducted at programme level, then programme representatives engaged in each project level risk assessment, then the programme risks were re-assessed to capture knowledge gained from the projects.

5.2 Programme Management – Level 2 to Level 3 Management Control

• Improve method guidance for programme vision/blueprint/future state definition and ensure that programmes are starting to use this guidance;

• Tighten the definition of and commitment to programme scope and also tighten change control to reduce the ability of stakeholders to introduce uncontrolled change;

• Adopt consistent reporting across programmes;

• Introduce role-based management for key roles such as Senior Responsible Owners, Business Change Managers and Programme Managers so that each person in a role has a clear definition of their specific role and responsibilities;

• Train and support people in their programme management roles; and

• Apply the concept of scheduled tranche reviews in programmes to formally take stock of progress to date and changes in the programme’s context to make decisions about the future of the programme.

Benefits Management

• Ensure that processes, templates and tools for benefit management are in place and being consistently used;

• Ensure that benefits are defined, observable, attributable and measurable (DOAM);

• Improve benefit realisation plans, profiles and schedules including definition of who has ownership/accountability for benefit realisation;

• Include assessment of benefits harvested to date in tranche reviews; and

• Provide guidance for consistent mapping of deliverables, outcomes and benefits.





of 27


Financial Management

• Establish Programme business cases that focus on a journey of change over time, benefits realisation on the way, islands of stable business capability and the associated risks (i.e. more than the standard project cost/benefit analysis); and

• Include re-assessment of the business case in tranche reviews to confirm it is still wholly valid and relevant to programme aims.

Stakeholder Management

• Document the good processes currently used by experienced programme sponsors and managers and communicate these to all Centrelink programme sponsors and managers.

Risk Management

• Following from the actions above (Section 5.1), communicate the programme risk management processes to all Centrelink programme sponsors and managers; and

• Introduce simple risk perspectives such as Strategic, Operational, Programme and Project.

Organisational Governance

• Embed Business Change Managers (as per Management Control, above) in programme decision making and management.

Resource Management

• Define and adopt a framework for resource capacity and capability planning at programme level; and

• Implement utilisation tracking and productivity monitoring.

Generic Attributes

Roles & Responsibilities

o Define the competencies required for key programme management roles (e.g. Business Change Managers must understand the operational environment into which they will deploy the capabilities delivered by the programme and they must have the authority to drive the associated operational change).

Experience in Programme Management

o Ensure that key people have programme and project management experience in balance with programme subject matter expertise.

Capability development

o Train people for their specific roles and responsibilities; and

o Implement programme management forums to share learning.

Planning & estimating processes o Implement goal and output-based planning and estimating methods across

Centrelink, noting that ICT areas already do this; and

o Identify, track and manage inter and intra-programme dependencies.

Information & documentation

o Make information refresh cycles and release management practices consistent across programmes.

Scrutiny & review

o Ensure that programmes are scrutinised to identify failures and, preferably, to also drive improvements in programme management.





of 27


5.3 Project Management – Level 2 to Level 3

Management Control

• Improve understanding and application of the Centrelink Project Management Framework (CPMF) in non-ICT areas of Centrelink. Specifically Tanner James noted;

o the current perception that the CPMF is ICT owned, driven and adopted; and

o confusion regarding project categorisation mechanisms and the relationships between them (eg DMAG priority setting, Category V, III and I, Financially Simplified vs Complex Projects). Consistent use and visibility of categories throughout the project lifecycle would enrich the meaning and consequences of categories.

• Ensure that the CPMF defines the integration points between programme and project management;

• Tighten the definition of and commitment to project scope and also tighten change control to prevent stakeholders from introducing uncontrolled change; and

• Improve the up front definition of deliverables and the ultimate evaluation against the deliverable definition, noting that for ICT components of projects this is already driven by the systems development life cycle (SDLC).

Benefits Management

• Increase the understanding for project sponsors and managers that benefits are being managed by CFO area and Senior Executives in relation to their projects and clarify the benefits management touch points between project sponsors, project managers, finance staff and Senior Executives. Note: The Project Management maturity level achieved in this assessment is 2 and not 1 as scored through raw calculations covering the score of 1 for Benefits Management. The Benefits Management process perspective has been scored at maturity level 2 given that the management of benefits occurs at “whole of Centrelink” level and is managed by the CFO and senior executives not by the project sponsors and managers interviewed as part of the assessment process.

Financial Management

• Where projects occur over multiple financial years, include business case re-assessment in the transition from one year to another in addition to topping up the project funding; and

• Address the inconsistency between Business and ICT areas of Centrelink regarding project funding perhaps through a combination of making practices more consistent or improving understanding about why the inconsistencies exist. Refer Section 3, above, observations regarding project management.

Stakeholder Management

• Improve documentation of processes (i.e. in the CPMF) for stakeholder engagement and communications to capture the good practices of more experienced project staff; and

• Raise awareness of CPMF stakeholder management tools and techniques.

Risk Management

• Ensure consistent application of the CPMF guidance for Risk Management across ICT and Business.





of 27


Organisational Governance

• A significant number of interviewees observed that some Steering Committees are failing to identify and seek answers to “the hard questions”. Introduction of role-based management for key project management personnel could ensure that each person in a role has a clear definition of their specific role and responsibilities, which in turn may improve their assessment and questioning of projects;

• Clarify reporting lines for both the writers and receivers of project reports. This should address the flow of project information up from team leaders within projects to project managers, then on to line management, steering committee members and those engaged in programme management; and

• Define the interfaces between project and programme governance arrangements, then education staff.

Resource Management

• Define and adopt a framework for resource capacity and capability planning at project level; and

• Implement utilisation tracking and productivity monitoring.

Generic Attributes

Roles & Responsibilities

o Define the competencies required for key project management roles (e.g. Business representatives on steering committees must understand the operational environment into which the deliverables of the project will be deployed and they must assist the definition of how those deliverables will be used).

Experience in Programme Management

o Ensure that key people have project management experience in balance with project subject matter expertise.

Capability development

o Train people for their specific roles and responsibilities.

Planning & estimating processes o Implement goal and output-based planning and estimating methods across

Centrelink, noting that ICT areas already do this; and

o Identify, track and manage inter-project dependencies.

Information & documentation

o Make information refresh cycles and release management practices consistent across projects.

Scrutiny & review

o Improve the connection between project scrutiny and review (e.g. ANAO audits and Gateway Reviews) and improvements in project management.





of 27


APPENDIX A – P3M3™ OVERVIEW P3M3™ is an overarching model containing three sub-models, Portfolio Management Maturity Model (PfM3), Programme Management Maturity Model (PgM3) and Project Management Maturity Model (PjM3);

Management

Control

Benefits

Management

Financial

Management

Organisational

Governance

Resource

Management

Stakeholder

Management

Risk

Management

Level 1 –Awareness of Process

Level 2 –Repeatable Processes

Level 3 –Defined Processes

Level 4 –Managed Processes

Level 5 –Optim

ised Processes

PORTFOLIO

PROGRAMME P

ROJECT

For each of the three sub-models P3M3™ examines up to 7 different process perspectives (Management Control, Benefits Management, Financial Management, Stakeholder Management, Risk Management, Organisational Governance and Resource Management). Within each perspective 5 levels are used to describe maturity, these levels can be applied independently within each model, or across all three to assess overall P3M3™ maturity.

3 Sub-models Portfolio Management

The totality of an organisation’s investment (or a segment thereof) in the changes required to achieve its strategic objectives. Portfolio Management describes the management of an organisations portfolio of business change initiatives.

Programme Management

Programmes exist to manage the complexities involved in delivering beneficial change. Programme Management is focussed on the areas of tension between strategic direction, project delivery and operational effectiveness.

Project Management

A project is a unique set of coordinated activities, with definite starting and finishing points, undertaken by an individual or team to meet specific objectives within defined time, cost and performance parameters as specified in the business case. Project Management guides a project through a visible set of activities, from controlled start-up, through delivery, to controlled closure, and review.





of 27


7 Process Perspectives

1. Management Control

This covers the internal controls of the initiative and how direction is maintained throughout its life cycle, with appropriate break points to enable it to be stopped or redirected by a controlling body if necessary. Best practice is characterised by clear evidence of leadership and direction, scope, stages, tranches and review processes during the course of the initiative.

2. Benefits Management

This ensures the desired business outcomes are clearly defined, measurable and ultimately delivered through a structured approach. Best practice recommends that benefits are assessed and approved by the organisational areas that will deliver them. Benefit dependencies and other requirements should be clearly defined, and understanding gained on how the initiative’s outputs will deliver the benefits.

3. Financial Management

This ensures that likely costs are captured and evaluated in a formal business case and are categorised and managed over the investment life cycle. There should be appropriate involvement from the organisation’s financial functions, with approvals being embedded in the broader organisational hierarchy. Best practice suggests that a business case should define the value of the initiative to the business and contain a financial appraisal of the possible options.

4. Stakeholder Management

Best practice suggests that both internal and external stakeholders are analysed and engaged in order to achieve the initiative’s objectives. Stakeholder Management includes communications planning, the effective identification and use of different communications channels, and techniques to enable objectives to be achieved.

5. Risk Management

This views the way in which the organisation manages threats to, and opportunities presented by, the initiative. Risk Management maintains a balance of focus on threats and opportunities, with appropriate management actions to reduce or eliminate the likelihood/impact of any identified threat.

6. Organisational Governance

This looks at how the delivery of initiatives are aligned to the organisation’s strategic direction, including start-up, closure and during the initiative’s lifecycle. This perspective looks at how the impact of external factors might be controlled/mitigated, as opposed to Management Control, which considers how internal control is maintained.

7. Resource Management

This covers management of all resources required for delivery, including human resources, buildings, equipment, supplies, information, tools and supporting teams. A key element is the process for acquiring resources and how supply chains are utilised to maximise their effective use. In best practice there will be evidence of capacity planning and prioritisation to enable effective resource management.





of 27


5 Maturity Levels

Maturity Level 1 - Awareness of Process

• Processes are not usually documented, actual practice is determined by events or individual preferences, and performance is variable.

• Successful initiatives are often based on key individuals’ competencies rather than organisation-wide capability and past successes can not be repeated consistently.

• Processes are undeveloped or incomplete. There is little or no guidance or supporting documentation and even terminology may not be standardised.

Maturity Level 2 - Repeatable Processes

• Basic management practices, e.g. tracking expenditure and scheduling resources, are in place and being improved. Key individuals are trained and demonstrate a successful track record and through them, the organisation is capable of repeating success.

• Initiatives are performed and managed according to their documented plans; project status and delivery is visible to management at defined points.

• There may still be inadequate measures of success; unclear responsibilities; ambiguity/inconsistency in business objectives; unintegrated Risk Management; limited Change Management; and inadequacies in communications strategy.

Maturity Level 3 – Defined Processes

• Management and technical processes are documented, standardised and integrated to some extent with business processes. There is some process ownership and a group responsible for maintaining consistency and delivering process improvements.

• Senior management are engaged consistently, providing active and informed support.

• There is an established training programme to develop individual’s skills and knowledge.

Maturity Level 4 – Managed Processes

• The organisation has defined processes that are quantitatively managed, i.e. controlled using metrics. There are quantitative objectives for quality and process performance, and these are being used in managing processes.

• Top management are proactively seeking out innovative ways to achieve goals.

• Using metrics, management can effectively control processes and identify ways to adjust and adapt them to particular initiatives without loss of quality.

Maturity Level 5 – Optimised Processes

• There is focus on optimisation of quantitatively managed processes to account for changing business needs. The organisation exhibits continuous process improvement, and can show strong alignment of organisational objectives with business plans.

• Top managers are seen as exemplars, reinforcing the need and potential for capability and performance improvement.

• Information from process and product metrics enables the organisation to understand causes of variation and to optimise its performance.

p3m3 assessment report - department of human services

Documents