SMI PROJECT MANAGEMENT MATURITY BASELINE REPORT...SMI Project Management Maturity Baseline Report 3...

SMI PROJECT MANAGEMENT MATURITY BASELINE REPORT

Written by Elissa Farrow

About Your Transition

Final 29 September 2015

2 The Sustainable Minerals Institute, The University of Queensland, Australia

1 Overview of P3M3

SMI is embarking on considerable cultural and organisational change through the Next SMI strategic program. As part of this program a project has been initiated to develop a project management framework for SMI to bring a level of consistency in practice. Elissa Farrow from About Your Transition, a registered consultant qualified to administer the P3M3® process has been brought on for this assignment and has conducted a series of interviews with stakeholders across the Centres of SMI to generate a whole of SMI picture. Managing research projects requires a project approach that is tailored to the unique nature of research where a lot of formal structure and documentation may not in the main, suit the flow of research content formation. Therefore it is worth noting that P3M3 maturity assessments are designed to be applied to all types of organisations, but the organisation is meant to use it as a basis to improve practice rather than a competition to achieve a certain score.

1.1 P3M3 overview

The 5 levels within the P3M3 model as based on the Carnegie Mellon Maturity Index, which is internationally recognised as the standards model. There is a tendency for people to think Level 1 is bad and Level 5 is great, however, this is not necessarily the case as organisations have different aspirations. The P3M3 model looks at 7 common areas, called perspectives, which the Review Team identified as the core of good P3 delivery, but there are situations where Level 1 is acceptable to an organisation. P3M3 is an overarching term to cover 3 sub-models which are reviewed independently as part of the review:

PFM3 – Portfolio management

PGM3 – Programme management

PJM3 – Project management The 7 perspectives are:

Organisational Governance – assesses how well the organisation controls the initiation and alignment of its investments with the corporate strategy

Management Control - assesses how well the organisation maintains control of the initiatives currently “in flight”

Benefits Management – assesses how well the organisation defines, tracks and ensures achievement of performance improvement from the investment.

Finance Management – assesses how well the organisation manages and controls the investment through business cases and budgetary control

Stakeholder Management – assesses how well the initiatives engage with and communicate with the external environment to minimise the negative implications engagement can achieve.

Risk Management - assesses how well the organisation focuses on and mitigates the impact of threats and the leveraging of opportunities.

Resource Management – assesses how well the organisation develops its own talent and utilises the opportunities from the supply chain to overcome peaks and troughs.

Each perspective is given it’s own maturity score so that there is a holistic view of the performance and which enables organisations to target their performance improvement against their own priorities and objectives. On their first assessment, the majority of organisations come out at level 1 or 2. This is because there will be areas that have not been thought about previously or are low priority but are being picked up by the model.

SMI Project Management Maturity Baseline Report 3

The following is a quick summary of the levels and help interpret the results. Level 1 – Awareness of process The organisation is able to recognise the activity but has little in the way of a structured approach to dealing with it. Other words that are associated with this level are “ad-hoc” or “heroic”. Organisations may choose to be at level 1, it may not be a core competence or part of their value stream and as such they are happy to buy in support to deliver it when it is needed, consequently there is no organisational maturity but it doesn’t mean that great projects aren’t delivered when they put their mind to it. It may also reflect that the perspective is not important or within their control, benefits is a good example, for a supplier the benefits actually belong to the customer who will release the benefits rather than the organisation being assessed, this is particularly common in the public sector. The main problem with being Level 1 is that the organisation has very little idea about what is going on and has no idea what the cost of success or failure is, there is basically little or no formal management and control over projects in place. Level 2 - Repeatable processes There may be areas that are beginning to use standard approaches to projects but there is no consistency of approach across the organisation. Another term that is often used is “hot-spots of good practice”. This level often has inconsistent performance or a lack of commitment or buy in to following a common approach, or a willingness to abandon the processes when they become inconvenient. This is often an indicator that there is a lack of senior management buy in or know how to ensure initiatives are remaining compliant. PM3M is unlikely to be at the core of an organisation in this situation. There are some down sides to being a level 2. It may indicate that money has been spent on tools, training and developing processes and they aren’t being followed, so could indicate waste. It could also indicate that there are embedded behaviours where parts of the organisation are refusing to comply which can be difficult to change. This is particularly the case if the organisation has been in this state for some time. The upsides are that for organisations seeking to improve it is a good marker that they are heading in the right direction and the foundations are in place for improvement but all the elements are not working in harmony or effectively as yet. The main problem with being Level 2 is that the organisation has invested money in improvement but has not necessarily achieved the outcomes, the investment has not been rewarded and so there can be a loss of executive support. This can be the level where most money is being lost as investment has been made but improvements are not being seen. The organisation will begin to see the costs of failure or success but is still unable to control them. Level 3 – defined process There will be a consistent set of standards being used by all projects, for example, across the organisation with clear process ownership. This is the level that most organisations aspire to because it is when the investment comes together, there is consistency of approach and there is control in place. They are able to identify initiatives going wrong and stop or re-direct them. The journey to level 3 from level 1 can take 2 to 3 years as it will involve a culture change in approach, organisations that are dispersed or silo based find reaching this level very difficult as it requires buy in


from the top of the organisation to collaboration and using a common standard, which can be seen as a threat to the autonomy of some executives. Organisations may find they reach level 3 on one or two perspectives. The most likely one for a level 3 rating is finance, this is because there is only one Finance Director, they set the rules and people follow them. For organisations at level 2 in finance it is normally a technical issues that is holding them back, commonly this is lack of finance training or limitation in the process, for example, failure to review business cases. Level 4 managed process The organisation monitors and measures its process efficiency, with active interventions to improve the way it delivers based largely on evidence or performance based information. The organisation will be focussing on optimisation of its quantitatively managed processes to take into account changing business needs and external factors. It will be anticipating future capacity demands and capability requirements to meet the delivery challenge, e.g. through portfolio analysis. In reality level 4 is where the organisation enjoys the benefits of the investment. Whereas Level 3 can feel stifling through their commitment to a common way of working, level 4 organisations become more agile and flexible in the approach. Level 2 organisations often mistake themselves as being level 4, however the backbone of consistent control is missing at level 2, which exists at level 4. There are very few examples of full level 4 achievement, though it is common to find level 4 attributes being exhibited as organisations aspire to higher levels of performance. This can happen in organisations that are actually rated at level 2, this can happen when there is particularly strong board level leadership pushing performance but it is not stable or fully established. Level 5 - optimised process The organisation will be focussing on optimisation of its quantitatively managed processes to take into account changing business needs and external factors. It will be anticipating future capacity demands and capability requirements to meet the delivery challenge, e.g. through portfolio analysis. In reality Level 5 is embedded in the culture of an organisation, they will have an approach to achieving their targets, it has been developed over many years and everyone in the organisation understands and is committed to the doing things in that way. Nobody has achieved a level 5 rating in P3M3 as yet.


2 SMI’s Project Management Maturity

The overall assessment of Project Management Maturity at SMI is as shown below: 1 – Awareness The organisation recognises projects and runs them differently based on

individual preference and limited management control.

2 – Repeatable Projects generally run with defined processes and procedures (these may be

defined on a project by project basis).

3 – Consistent The organisation has its own centrally controlled project processes, and

individual projects flex within these processes to suit the particular project.

4 – Managed The organisation measures its project management performance and runs a

quality management organisation to better predict future performance.

5 – Optimising The organisation runs continuous process improvement with proactive problem

management.

Project Management Maturity (PjM3)

[NOTE: To be awarded a ‘green’ level of maturity, that level must be seen across all perspectives.] SMI Summary by Perspective

5 4 3 2 1 Organisation Management

Control Benefits

Management Risk

Management Financial

Management Stakeholder

Management Resource

Management

Project Management Perspective Scoring

Summary of findings SMI has had a history of delivering research outcomes for industry partners. This has been achieved however without having an agreed Institute wide Framework or in most cases not having a detailed plan, that achieves those deliverables on time or within budget. Centre application of project management principles and core techniques varies considerably at the current state, which is what has lead to a level one rating. If a centre-by-centre analysis was conducted there would be pockets of good practice that would exist that could be considered more structured in a formal project management model. Clearly there is an appetite to have a consistent approach that also will reflect positively on how industry partners and sponsors perceive the Institute as a whole when receiving multiple contacts. Being a research organisation that exists to deliver research projects and academic outcomes in the majority, there is a strong interface between the project delivery and other delivery frameworks. For example, finance, contracting and procurement are in some cases delineated and there is the potential for duplication of effort in regard to documentation, offering the potential for cost savings especially for smaller projects. Being also in the University of Queensland broader organisational context there are also UQ policies that do not fit neatly into SMI delivery requirements thus causing some delays especially in early stages of project definition and contracting.


The main project management resources are the researchers themselves. At the current time these researchers are supported by administrative resources, and centre management that provide assistance in the financial control, schedule control and contractual management for each project. Project human resources are not expected to be have formal qualifications or certifications in project management and have not historically been obligated to undergo training on the job, which makes it almost impossible to maintain delivery to a consistent standard. Project risk management is not well defined, with inconsistent application as part of contracting and is often reliant on what the preference of the grant body. There is no understanding of impact at the Portfolio or Programme level. A major risk to a project may be minor in the bigger scheme, but more threatening is apparently minor project risks having an unrecognised major impact on the wider organisation. Tracking of budgets is performed as the primary aspect of delivery, this is usually against contracted milestone where in the majority of cases the proposal and contract is the main tool to control the project with limited additional project documentation or governance being applied. At the time of the review governance is unclear with the role mainly being fulfilled by the Lead Chief Investigator or Centre Management as opposed to a formal steering committee. Project or Program Sponsor (funding body) involvement is contracted specifically and varies according to funding source and conditions. It is rare for a project sponsor or at this stage Centre Management or Lead Chief Investigators to have full access to status information covering time, cost and technical deliverables status. There seems to be a lack of scruitiny of the technical delivery component which may be fully appropriate. There will be additional portfolio and program governance installed as part of the Next SMI structural changes and this was requested in a recent UQ Audit report. Reporting is currently adhoc and often done informally or only at contracted milestones. There is a centre by centre difference here with one part of the organisation having a weekly meeting with the Centre Director to go through project financial and milestone status and to discuss issues and resource implications, while other areas do not.

Organisational Governance is at level 1– there is no clear governance model in place, yet there are opportunities for consistent application especially around proposal submission. There is no Portfolio Committee but one will be created as part of Next SMI structural changes that will provide clear strategic overview of the projects that are running.

Management Control is at level 1 – project management controls are not established for the full project lifecycle, are not consistently applied from project to project and there are no gated controls between lifecycle stages apart from the formal contracting period.

Benefits Management is at level 1 – there is understanding of the importance of impact demonstration/benefits management, but it lacks structure and adaptation to the SMI environment such that application is currently somewhat inconsistent.

Risk Management is at level 1 –this is not practiced as a deliberate and universal activity at SMI there is more focus on issue management that may impact on the contracted achievement which indicates that the delivery risks outside of OHS may not be identified, hence they become issues.

Finance Management is at level 1 – there are processes in place for tracking and reporting project costs and expenditures but improvements can be made in understanding of budget planning, communication of status and forecasting.

Stakeholder Management is at level 1 – there is recognition that stakeholders need to be involved with projects but stakeholder management overall requires maturation, especially in consistency from multiple researchers to similar industry bodies.

Resource Management is at level 1 – whilst some resourcing practices are in place, there is a lack of standards and consistency in thorough resource management as well as a significant absence of tailored project management skills development and competency pathways.


2.1 Recommendations

The following are our recommendations for developing Project Management to level 2 and beyond: Embed project management capabilities into new job descriptions for researchers, centre directors and

Program Leaders. Develop a more scalable approach in the definition and implementation of project management processes

that reflect the scale and risk of the project. To achieve level 3 maturity a lifecycle with stage-gates that enable stop/go decisions within the lifecycle is

required and the consistency of approach. Extend the financial rigour to the full project lifecycle e.g. review of business cases at key stages and the

ability to stop projects where they are no longer aligned to strategy or financially viable. The project gates recommendation will help enable this.

Establish project planning standards that cover, for example, estimating, scheduling, resourcing, tracking and reporting to meet clearly defined ‘fit-for-purpose’ standards of integrity. This should be supported by a training program and support to adopt the standards.

Investigate and implement consolidated progress reporting across all projects through an accessible software platform

Create a project complexity tool to then guide the level of project management and control expected on each project type.

Develop a cohesive professional skills development scheme for enhancing knowledge and capability at all levels of the project community including Leadership team members.

Confirm a group centrally that have a Portfolio Office mandate comprising assurance, facilitation and the actioning of lessons learned across all aspects of project planning, tracking, control and reporting. This team can also embed the project framework that is being created. Consider naming this function as a Portfolio Office and identifying core process owners that can support the development and improvement of standards as this will increase team ownership.

Review the “process table” section for gap analysis of missing process and plan to improve. The move to embed a program and portfolio governance and formality is also underway as part the NextSMI Program. Having embedded Program Leads and some focus area will also mean in the future program management maturity will be able to be formally baselined and assessed.

2.1.1 Strengths

Project outcomes are being delivered despite the lack of a formalised project management methodology. There is active commitment from the executive level to improving project conceptualisation, management

and execution that is very supportive of the teams and committed to effective project management. There has been an investment by SMI in project management through engagement of a consultant to

support the development of a customised frameworks. There has been consideration of funding training in project management, budget and contract management

in the future. The Next SMI role of Program Leaders has been identified to be responsible for Program Execution,

accountability and management. Recent centralisation of finance functions will bring consistency around financial approach to estimation as

will a project costing tool recently implemented Roles and responsibilities are defined for major roles (noting there is some shifts here through the NextSMI

structural changes). Project human resources (project managers, team members) are available and are in the main well utilised. It is hoped that Celoxis or an alternative Enterprise Portfolio Management tool will provide more

information to enable integrated resource plans and increase transparency of project management data to Project Managers and management.


2.1.2 Weaknesses

Project processes are not scaled appropriately according to project needs. There is a lack of formalisation and consistent practice of gate controls to ensure continuing viability of

projects. More emphasis on specialist creation than management oversite. Standard measurements of success (KPIs) not seen. There is a current strong silo based culture where Centres have been managed automously with varying

processes. Not a full set of common templates or standards for utilisation across SMI currently Status not being reported consistently or formally outside of contracted milestones. Application of risk assessment criteria inconsistent. Management by exception not in place. Often all risks shown at a project board for review. No consistent risk or issues management process being applied Administrative staff are conducting management activities on behalf of researchers (non-technical) Inflexibility of contract and legal process for small low risk initiatives Little evidence seen of effective or consistent resource planning, timesheeting or forecasting.


3 Detailed breakdown by perspective

3.1 Organisational Governance – Level 1

Organisational governance at the project level is assessed as being at level 1 with some attributes at Level 2 and 3. There is no common governance framework in place which is used by all projects. Project Steering Committees are not used on this context often with project governance being handled by the Centre Director or Lead Chief Investigator.

There is often minimal sponsor (funding body) ownership of a project or representation by the sponsor (funding body) on project teams. This varies across funding bodies. The alignment of project outputs with business needs is maintained only informally during the project lifecycle. The role of Researcher should contain responsibilities for ensuring that projects are assessed and reviewed in light of any changes to client corporate strategy. There is no evidence of a project assurance function to maintain standards of quality in project plans, control documents, product validation and other artefacts and activities across the project lifecycle.

3.1.1 Attribute Level Assessment Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 1. Awareness. Decision-making authorities for each project are clearly defined and are based on a distinction between those who direct the project and those who manage the project.

2. Repeatable. Projects can demonstrate a clear link and alignment with strategic organisational objectives (such as those documented in a corporate plan), with roles and responsibilities for this defined.

3. Consistent. There is a common governance framework that ensures projects are approved based on their alignment to strategic objectives and that they remain aligned to the business needs throughout their lifecycle. If a project is no longer aligned to strategic objectives it is either realigned or stopped.

4. Managed. Quantitative information is used to assess the effectiveness of governance framework for the organisation’s projects.

5. Optimising. The governance arrangements for projects are fully integrated with corporate governance, with demonstrable reporting lines from all projects through to Executive Board level.


Some projects have a project board (or equivalent) steering its direction.

It is recognised that the Project Board (or equivalent) is responsible for ensuring strategic alignment

Project Managers are appointed (they may be part time and may have existing functional responsibilities in addition to managing the project)

Project Managers generally report progress to the Project Board

It is recognised that rudimentary project information should be maintained.

Project Governance (or equivalent) exist, but with ad hoc membership - often acting more as consultation groups than accountable groups

Projects generally have a defined link to an organisational strategy or objectives

Decision making within projects takes account of local organisational factors

Projects take corporate and regulatory standards into account during the definition

Projects have an internal reporting structure and progress is reported locally

Localised dependencies are recognised and managed between projects - but overlaps between projects tend to occur

There are examples of projects that have clearly defined break points where the organisation can decide to stop or go, but this is not consistently applied, these may take the form of gate reviews.

The organisational leadership has shown commitment to the concepts

There is a common definition of the roles and responsibilities of Project Boards (or equivalent), which are in place on most projects unless there is a justifiable reason to vary

There are centralised formal reviews of the portfolio of projects to SMIrmine the best mix of projects to deliver the organisation’s strategy.

Operational stakeholders are consulted during the definition of projects and are involved in direction setting and final acceptance

There is clear commitment from all organisation leaders to the concepts of project management

Project management is part of a professional structure with different roles being formally recognised.

There is a standardised independent approach to assurance

There are central storage facilities for project information which are maintained under change control and are current, accurate and available to projects for reference.

Strategic changes are communicated to Project Boards effectively

The responsibilities for maintaining alignment with organisational strategy are embedded in the organisation’s structure and hierarchy

Projects are not only aligned to the organisation’s strategic objectives, but flex and realign effectively with changes to strategic direction

Decisions to launch projects made against impact assessment on current initiatives

Projects that lose alignment to the organisation’s strategy are changed or stopped quickly.

Pre-emptive and rational project closure based on business decisions rather than project performance

Escalation routes are in place from project boards to strategy boards (or executive boards)

Project leadership is part of the organisation’s leadership development programme and recognised as a core competency

Ownership of project outcomes and benefits is embedded at the strategic and executive level of the organisation

Decision making is rapid with clear accountability embedded in the organisation’s management structure and processes

Project reporting is part of Corporate reporting and control process

Knowledge is managed as a core asset within the organisation and project information is fed into this system

Decisions on priorities and major conflict resolution resolved by reference to strategic priorities and Executive Board

Lessons learned contribute to development of guidance on conduct of specific roles

Formal ideas management process exists, with ideas deferred or built into strategy where appropriate

High levels of competence in project and change management evident at Executive Board level

Regular periodic reviews of


of project management, but it tends to be localised

Project management is recognised as a professional career by some parts of the organisation

Community of project management practice may exist, but with limited effectiveness in prioritizing and coordinating process improvement across the organization.

Decisions are auditable

Projects have a standard approach to reporting enabling consolidated progress reporting

Clear reporting lines are set and maintained

Legislative and regulatory requirements built into guidelines and compliance is monitored

The organisation has a set of prescribed control points to review the alignment of each project. These may take the form of gate reviews. The control points include start-up and closure as a minimum.

A clear understanding of the dependencies between the projects and other initiatives exist.

A track record in successful project delivery is acknowledged as a key element for career progression

Reviews and assurance are used to identify opportunities for organisation wide improvements

Decision-making effectiveness is reviewed and improvements sought

effectiveness of governance arrangements, based on lessons learned

3.2 Management Control – Level 1

Management control of projects is assessed as being at level 1. There is no full project lifecycle framework is in place and being used, but one is under development. There has been more emphasis placed on the delivery of specialist products than management of the delivery to quality, time, cost and scope.

Project monitoring and control is mainly done against spend rather than progress. Actual project performance is often gut-feel rather than formal reporting apart from formal funding milestone delivery markers. Monitoring of progress is undertaken on some projects and some corrective actions are taken without a defined change process. All projects should report actual achievements against agreed key milestones. Issues are generally resolved locally with little assessment of impact to other areas. No formal business operations impact assessment is defined prior to project implementation. Some projects are considered a success if they deliver the technical outcome (rather than to time and cost). Projects do not appear to have a Project Log that captures risks, issues, actions and key learning’s identified. Learning’s are not collated in a common register so there is little on which to build and perhaps reduce the risk for new projects.


3.2.1 Attribute Level Assessment Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 1. Awareness. It is recognised that projects require management controls (such as reporting and reviewing) in addition to existing line/business management controls. Some rudimentary project controls are in place.

2. Repeatable. Project management controls are established for the full project lifecycle (e.g. initiation, development, implementation, handover) but these may differ from project to project.

3. Consistent. There is a consistent approach to project management controls across the organisation, based on standard processes and methods, which ensure that projects consistently deliver the specified outputs.

4. Managed. Project management controls are integrated with other business processes/functions. There is an emphasis on quantitative performance measurement and analysis of the effectiveness of the organisation’s project management controls.

5. Optimising. The organisation’s project management controls are periodically evaluated to ensure they remain aligned to the business imperatives, strategies and plans.

Project management terminology is becoming accepted and used to describe initiatives.

Projects exist and have some defined intent and a way to achieve it.

Projects have a basic level of control being applied.

Projects have a leader or sponsor, but their role may not bet clearly defined

Projects recognise and document issues

Projects have an outline timetable but plans for achieving it tend to be ad-hoc

Responsibilities for maintaining control of the project are generally understood.

Project teams may have had some introductory training on

Projects have documentation describing their intent, but the level of detail varies between projects

Projects have a Project Board (or equivalent) that steers the direction of each project with some responsibilities defined, but they vary between projects

Projects have their own issue register and a standard way of managing issues internally.

Projects have a lifecycle with locally defined stage/break points and major milestones, where the validity of the project is assessed

Projects have plans which include key information and a timetable which covers most of the major events that will be managed.

There is a consistent approach to project management controls across the organisation, based on standard processes and tools which ensure projects consistently deliver their specified outputs.

There is a central group in place (perhaps a centre of excellence) which sets project management standards

Projects have detailed documentation, to a common standard, defining their purpose and objectives

All projects have project boards that control the direction and delivery of the project and which has defined responsibilities to a consistent standard

Projects are categorised

Project issues are analysed to identify trends and interventions to prevent further occurrences is undertaken

Common causes of product defects and process non-compliance are analysed and interventions to prevent further occurrences is undertaken

Projects analyse and compare plans to identify opportunities to optimise performance and delivery techniques

Interdependencies between projects are effectively identified and managed

Project teams are experience and competent. Training, coaching and/or support to enable the delivery of

Project controls are closely aligned to organisational controls with clear lines of accountability.

Project issues that require executive interventions have a clear escalation path which is proven to be effective

Project lifecycles are aligned to corporate strategies and goals.

Knowledge is managed as a core asset within the organisation and project information is fed into this system

Project management information is reviewed for trend analysis so that pro-active improvements can be implemented prior to issues/defects occur.

Corporate decisions are


project control Project definition information

exists for some projects Some projects report their

progress locally Standards and tools are

developed by each project for its own use

Project management team roles are acknowledged and described locally with specific responsibilities for management control

Project teams may have received general project management training

Projects conduct their own internal checks of their performance in terms of effectiveness of control

Projects have their definition documentation under localised version control

Projects have information with audit trails of changes

Information security standards are defined and in place to locally defined standards

Projects have an internal reporting structure and progress is reported

against a corporate standard to ensure appropriate controls, this could be risk based and would consider the nature of the project.

There is a standard way for projects to manage issues and deal with issues that is deployed consistently across all projects.

The organisation has a standard project lifecycle that is applied to all projects. Projects are subject to gate or independent peer reviews to assure ongoing viability.

Plans are developed to a consistent standard by all projects outlining how they will achieve their intent.

There are a standard set of roles and responsibilities that are consistently deployed and applied to all projects

Project teams have had specific training, to the organisations standards, on project initiation, control and delivery

There are subject matter experts within a central group that provide expert support to support project control

There is a standard approach to assurance and reviews that is used by all projects to

personal development and organisational performance is provided

Project Boards have appropriate business representation, including supply chain, where appropriate.

Reviews and assurance are used to identify opportunities for organisation wide improvements to project delivery

Consolidated project reports are reviewed and analysed for organisational level threats and opportunities

The tools in use enable analysis and review of key performance areas and enable project performance improvement

Standards are continually under review by a central group for opportunities for improvement based on lessons learned, performance reviews, assurance reviews and external best practice. Updated standards and processes are deployed effectively through a release management regime.

supported by project information upon which there are high levels of confidence

Information security standards are integrated with organisational standards and work effectively.

Project reporting is part of Corporate reporting and control process


assess overall performance, this could be via gates or peer reviews

There are central storage facilities for project information and it is maintained under change control with an approach to indexing and reference

Projects are subject to an organisation wide Configuration Management regime

Projects are working on up to date information that enables effective decision making, this information accuracy is centrally managed

There are centrally defined information security standards are defined and in place, and all projects conform

Projects have a standard approach to reporting

3.3 Benefits Management – Level 1

Benefits management at the project level is assessed as being at level 1.

At SMI Benefits Management is not a concept utilised, it is more in relation to Impact Demonstration and the aim for publishable work rather than commercial outcome. However, there are no explicit measures to define project success and benefits seen as justification rather than a core element of project’s delivery. The business case template should be updated to include benefits justified in measurable terms.


There is no documented standard approach to defining and tracking delivery of project benefits/impact or separation of project outputs from benefits measurement and realisation. Post-project reviews, where done, focus on project activities and deliverables rather than achievement of benefits.

The responsibility for benefits achievement is unclear. There is little or no recognition of the management or realisation of benefits. The role of sponsor or project executive in benefits management and realisation is not fully understood.

3.3.1 Attribute Level Assessment Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 1. Awareness. There is recognition that benefits need to be documented in measurable terms and that activities to realise benefits need to be planned and tracked.

2. Repeatable. Project documentation includes detailed descriptions of benefits, plans and responsibilities for delivering them.

3. Consistent. There is a centrally-managed framework for defining and tracking the delivery of benefits from project outputs.

4. Managed. Analysis is undertaken to assess how well projects perform in delivering expected benefits. These business performance metrics are used to adjust benefits forecasts to aid decision making.

5. Optimising. Benefits realisation controls are embedded in strategic planning activities with clear accountability at board level.

There is evidence of some understanding of the differences between product features, outputs, outcomes and benefits.

Expected benefits are identified and rudimentary information is recorded but they may not be categorised or quantified.

Benefits are likely to be documented as part of the justification for the project, rather than a core element managing the project.

The project defines its local approach to managing benefits (e.g. definitions, process, reviewing, measuring, reporting, budgeting).

There are documented statements explaining how benefits will be achieved from project outputs.

Benefits analysis includes identification of dis-benefits.

Projects have a variety of approaches to measuring benefits, one of which

Benefits are categorised in accordance with a common standard.

There is a centralised common framework for defining, measuring and reviewing Benefits. The framework includes opportunity management to enhance identified benefits.

Benefits Management is integrated with other project management processes – e.g. planning, business case development, change control.

Benefit dependencies between projects are tracked. Any changes to one project or in corporate strategy are assessed for impact across the projects.

Projects use corporate performance indicators to define the measurements to be used to asses benefits achievement.

A process is in place to prevent double counting of benefits across projects.

Benefits management is

Benefits realisation controls embedded in organisational controls.

Project benefit measurement is embedded within corporate performance measurement systems.

Benefits realisation is embedded within corporate and project planning processes.

Benefits management is a core skill in all levels of management.

There is clear board level


Some rudimentary measurement criteria is defined.

Someone is responsible for managing benefits on the project.

includes post-implementation reviews.

Changes to the project are considered against the impact on benefits.

There has been basic training on in the concepts of benefits management.

Benefit Owners are appointed to define, monitor and realise specific benefits.

Benefit reviews are included in the project’s progress reviews. The review approach may vary from project to project.

Benefit reports included in the project’s progress reports (e.g. checkpoint reports, highlight reports, end stage reports).

Projects apply some form of local benefits analysis toolkit, e.g. using benefit maps to show relationship between outputs, outcomes and benefits.

Project Plans are reviewed to take account of Benefits realisation plans .

There has been specific training in benefits management techniques and tools.

There is a standard set of roles and responsibilities in place for benefits management.

There is benefits management expertise available to advise projects.

Benefits information is up to date and consistently recorded.

A range of standard sophisticated benefit measures are designed and deployed according to circumstance (e.g. balance score card).

There is a standard benefits analysis toolkit in place and standard templates for benefits documentation are deployed.

developed as a core competence for people involved in projects.

Responsibility for Benefits is embedded in the organisational hierarchy.

There is a corporate benefits management expert (possibly in a centre of excellence) responsible for the organisation’s benefits management processes.

The organisation ensures that claimed benefits are realistic and endorsed by the project sponsor.

The organisation undertakes audits to evaluate the effectiveness of its Benefits Management processes.

Post-implementation reviews are studied for trends and lessons which are fed back into the benefits management processes.

Statistical analysis is used to balance benefits and dis-benefits.

The benefits analysis toolkit is regularly assessed for effectiveness and updated when appropriate.

accountability for the delivery of individual benefits and change

Review of benefits management effectiveness is part of corporate continual improvement.

Executive Board has clear visibility of which projects contribute to which benefits.

There is a clear link between strategic decision making and benefits realisation.


3.4 Risk Management – Level 1

Risk management at the project level is assessed at level 1

Some identified project risks are associated with particular projects, but are not described or registered consistently. Risk related to OHS mainly captured and mitigated as part of early proposal development and contracting but not revisited. Risks and Issues are not commonly logged and tracked. However, application of risk assessment criteria can be inconsistent. Management by exception using tolerances is not in place and often all risks shown at a project board for review. Where risk responses have been developed these are often ineffective and lead to over-emphasis on issues. Because of this, the focus of management attention is on dealing with issues as they arise, with a reactive rather than proactive approach. Risk status may be reported to senior management on ad hoc basis through project reports. These may be escalated to Programme level but at a Programme level there is no clear guidelines on how the risks should be evaluated and actions taken to reduce the risks. Project reporting should contain information on Project Risks, their impact and what actions are being taken. There was no evidence seen of schedules of risk reviews during the project lifecycle and the updating of risks status tends to be through project reports however these could be easily built into standard project lifecycle.

3.4.1 Attribute Level Assessment Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5

1. Awareness. There is recognition that risks are different to issues. The project’s risks are documented, but there is no structured approach to risk management.

2. Repeatable. Risk identification is a deliberate activity conducted periodically during the life of the project. The project’s risks are documented in a project risk register.

3. Consistent. Risks are categorised according to a corporate common standard. A common process exists for risk identification, assessment, planning and implementation.

4. Managed. Quantitative information is used to assess the effectiveness of risk management across the organisation’s projects. Risk data enables confidence levels to be assigned to projects based on their risk profile.

5. Optimising. The organisation’s risk management data is analysed for trends so that root causes can be resolved collectively rather than on a per project basis.


Risks are identified but they are likely to focus on threats only.

Risks are captured and rudimentary information is recorded but they may not necessarily be categorised or quantified.

Someone is responsible for managing risks on the project (typically allocated to the Project Manager).

Risk reviews are undertaken periodically.

Risks are captured, prioritised and recorded in a risk register and periodically reviewed. The approach may vary from project to project.

The project defines its local approach to managing risks (e.g. definitions, process, reviewing, reporting, budgeting).

A project’s major risks have risk response plans.

There has been basic training on in the concepts of risk management

Risk Owners are appointed to implement risk responses and monitor specific risks.

Risk reviews are built in to the project’s progress reviews (at team and management levels).

Risk reports are built into the project’s progress reports (e.g. checkpoint reports, highlight reports, end stage reports).

Projects use some form of risk management tool (possibly just a spreadsheet or standalone database) to analyse and evaluate risks and monitor their status. Tools may vary across projects.

Risks are categorised in accordance with a common standard (e.g. technical, financial, legal) to aid ownership and reporting.

Risk identification and assessment covers impacts to both internal and external goals.

The organisation has developed some Risk Checklists to aid risk identification.

Risk Management is integrated with other project management processes – e.g. planning, business case development, change control.

There has been specific training in risk management techniques and tools.

There is a standard set of roles and responsibilities in place for the management of risk.

The organisation undertakes risk audits (perhaps as part of a wider audit scheme). Such reviews seek opportunities for improvement as well as compliance.

Risk information is up to date and consistently recorded.

Projects report risks to senior management using summary

Risk management definitions enable assessment of risk profiles for the organisation’s projects.

Risk thresholds that are unacceptable to the organisation are defined and communicated. Escalation mechanisms exist if a project is forecast to exceed such thresholds.

Costs for Risk Management are identified and managed as a discrete aspect of the project budgets. This should cover both the cost of managing the process and the cost of implementing risk responses or dealing with risks that have occurred.

Risk management is developed as a core competence for people involved in projects.

Responsibility for risk is embedded in the organisational hierarchy.

There is a corporate risk expert (possibly in a centre of excellence) responsible for the organisation’s risk management processes. The risk expert provides guidance to projects.

The organisation undertakes

Risk control is embedded in all organisational activities.

Risk management is a core skill in all levels of management.

The organisation has defined risk thresholds that trigger board involvement in the treatment of risks.

The organisation’s project risk management policy and supporting governance arrangements are periodically reviewed for effectiveness.

Executive Board has clear visibility of risk exposure to the organisation from its projects.

An enterprise risk management tool is used that enables analysis such as trend analysis, early warning indicators and aggregated risk exposure.


risk profiles. Projects use a common risk

management tool (possibly just a spreadsheet or standalone database).

Statistical analysis is used to aggregate risks. Modelling techniques (such as Monte Carlo analysis) may also be used.

audits to evaluate the effectiveness of its risk management processes. The cost-effectiveness of risk responses are evaluated.

There is evidence of lessons being learned from project reviews and assurance reviews.

A process exists to capture common risks and effective risk responses so that they can be shared with the project management community.

Projects use a common enterprise risk management tool.

3.5 Finance Management – Level 1

Finance management is assessed at the project level as being at level 1.

There were a number of different forms seen of the standard business case. Consideration is made of cost, dependencies, priority, objectives, scope, risks, resources, impact, contractors and overall responsibility when initially putting the business case together. However, there is no re-validation of the business case during the project lifecycle. Project expenditure is monitored and controlled via finance reporting processes. The financial processes are becoming more consistent and the financial resources recently centralised. Projects are often loosely scoped which can cause difficulties setting realistic budgets or cost estimates. Budgeting cost management at project level is inconsistent across projects and budgets for funding changes as well as project outputs is usually not included in business cases.


3.5.1 Attribute Level Assessment Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 1. Awareness. A project budget is documented and approved prior to project commencement.

2. Repeatable. Project funds are distinguishable from normal operational costs. Project finances are tracked and forecast.

3. Consistent. The organisation has common standards for the preparation of business cases and processes for the management of business cases throughout the project lifecycle.

4. Managed. Quantitative information is used to assess the effectiveness of finance e management across the organisation’s projects.

5. Optimising. Cost estimation techniques utilised at the project level are continually reviewed in terms of actual versus estimate comparisons to improve budgeting and financial control.

Project budgets are calculated and rudimentary information is recorded.

Projects are subject to management approval in order to obtain project budgets.

Management approval for projects state the project budget and any limits on expenditure.

Someone is responsible for managing the project budget.

Project budgets/cost accounting are separated out from operational budgets/cost accounting.

Projects follow a local process for tracking costs and reporting against approved budgets.

There is evidence of local financial planning, but tends to focus on tracking rather than forecasting

There has been basic training on in the concepts of finance management.

Roles and responsibilities for project finance are generally understood and approval levels are allocated locally.

Local reviews of the project’s finances are built in to the project’s progress reviews.

Budget reports are built into the project’s progress reports

Local approaches to business

Budgets are calculated and costs are accounted for in accordance with organisational standards

There is a common framework for business case development and controlling project finances throughout the project lifecycle.

Finance Management is integrated with other project management processes – e.g. planning, change control.

There has been specific training in finance management techniques and tools.

There is a standard set of roles and responsibilities in place for finance management and approvals across all projects.

Project financial management expertise available to advise projects.

Standard budgeting and cost accounting definitions enable comparative analysis of projects across the organisation.

Finance management at project level fully integrated with the organization's financial management functions.

Project financial approvals process integrated into organizational financial approvals process.

Analysis of expenditure across projects is used to release and constrain funds in a systematic way.

Earned Value Management concepts of project activity may be deployed, as appropriate.

Finance management is a key skill for people involved in projects.

Project finance planning is embedded within corporate planning.

Project Finance information is embedded into corporate financial reporting processes.

Project Business Cases are aligned to Strategic business planning.

Project funding is embedded within the strategic funding process.

Finance management is a core skill in all levels of management.

The organisation has defined financial thresholds that trigger main board involvement in the approval of project budgets and remedies for projects forecasting to be over-budget.

There is an Investment Board (or equivalent) overseeing all project financial performance.


case development and management are in place.

Business Cases are reviewed and approved (at the local level).

Business Cases generally contain more than one option to justify the design intent or preferred solution.

Issues and risks are generally assessed for impact on the Business Case.

The organisation undertakes financial audits of its projects (perhaps as part of a wider audit scheme). Such reviews seek opportunities for improvement as well as compliance.

Financial information is up to date, consistently recorded and audit trails for budget approval and expenditure are maintained.

Project budgets include an allowance for analysing and funding requests for change.

Standard financial estimation and value for money techniques deployed consistently across projects.

Business cases reviewed at explicit stages in project life cycle to ensure they remain desirable, viable and achievable.

Evidence of operational sign-off for any additional costs imposed by project.

Responsibility for finance is embedded in the organisational hierarchy and aligned with project finance.

There is a corporate project finance expert (possibly in a centre of excellence) responsible for the organisation’s finance management processes.

The organisation undertakes audits to evaluate the effectiveness of its financial management processes.

Reviewing of finance management is part of the continual improvement process for project management.

Lessons on cost estimation shared across projects.

The organization routinely collects performance data from projects and uses it to characterize process capability.

Project finance expertise is embedded within the organisations culture .

Objective and regular assessment of the optimal use of finances, and review of opportunities to identify better value from supply chain and market place.

Review of Finance management effectiveness are part of corporate continual improvement.

3.6 Stakeholder Management – Level 1

Stakeholder management in projects is assessed as being at level 1. Project Managers undertake some high level, informal analysis and communications planning. The concept of stakeholder engagement is acknowledged but lacks consistency through the project lifecycle, and often done in accordance with key contracted milestones rather than for some broader customer orientation. Project


stakeholders are generally identified at project definition through knowledge of senior staff.

Project Managers generally communicate with stakeholders on an ad hoc basis, relying on individuals within the team taking the initiative. Outgoing communications channels from projects are limited, with focus on email or websites (that may not be centrally controlled). Some stakeholders are advised or consulted and feedback processed, but there are no audit trails or checks to ensure consistent delivery of key messages. 3.6.1 Attribute Level Assessment Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 1. Awareness. There is recognition that stakeholders need to be involved with projects.

2. Repeatable. Stakeholder Management is a deliberate activity undertaken by the project. Techniques and effectiveness may vary from project to project.

3. Consistent. There is a centrally managed and consistent approach to stakeholder management and communications, used by all projects.

4. Managed. Quantitative information is used to underpin the assessment of effectiveness of stakeholder management across the organisation’s projects.

5. Optimising. Communication is being optimised from extensive knowledge of the stakeholder environment, to enable all projects to achieve their objectives.

Project Managers communicate with stakeholders. This may be on ad hoc basis, relying on individuals within the team taking the initiative.

Stakeholders are identified and rudimentary information is recorded but stakeholders may not necessarily be categorised.

Someone is responsible for managing stakeholders on the project (typically allocated to the Project Manager).

Projects communicate with stakeholders in a systematic way, which may vary from project to project.

Categorisation is used to differentiate stakeholder groupings.

Projects establish and maintain stakeholder profiles and communications plans.

There has been basic training in the concepts of Stakeholder management

There are agreed responsibilities for stakeholder management and communications for the project.

Local Stakeholder

There is evidence of proactive communications management to influence stakeholder attitudes and levels of support.

There is a common framework that enables effective and ongoing identification, assessment and engagement with stakeholders across all projects throughout their lifecycle.

Plans are adjusted in response to periodic reviews of stakeholder attitudes.

Projects consistently use a range of standard communications channels.

Stakeholder profiles and overall attitudes are embedded in the decision making processes for projects.

Communications channels are sophisticated and include reliable feedback loops.

Budgets for Stakeholder Management and Communications exist.

A centrally managed communications plan balances communications from all projects.

Stakeholder management is developed as a core competence for people involved in projects

Stakeholder engagement is embedded within corporate planning.

Project communications is embedded within corporate communications.

Stakeholder management is a core skill in all levels of management, resulting in high levels of effectiveness.

Review of Stakeholder management effectiveness is part of corporate continual improvement

Executive Board has clear visibility of which projects are engaged with key corporate stakeholders.

Corporate communications


Management reviews are built in to the project’s progress reviews.

Stakeholder Management status reports are built into the project’s progress reports

Projects apply some form of stakeholder analysis toolkit, e.g. using stakeholder maps to show stakeholder groupings and their interests in the project and its outcome.

There has been specific training in Stakeholder management techniques and tools

There is a standard set of roles and responsibilities in place for Stakeholder Management and communications for all projects.

The organisation undertakes stakeholder management audits of its projects (perhaps as part of a wider audit scheme). Such reviews seek opportunities for improvement as well as compliance.

Stakeholder information is up to date and consistently recorded.

Communication audit trails are maintained.

There is a standard stakeholder analysis toolkit in place and standard templates for communications plans are deployed.

There is a corporate Stakeholder Management expert (possibly from a centre of excellence) responsible for the organisation’s Stakeholder management capability. The expert provides guidance to projects.

Corporate communications (or equivalent) define stakeholder management processes and actively seek feedback (for example through satisfaction surveys) to monitor positive or negative reactions.

The organisation undertakes audits to evaluate the effectiveness of its Stakeholder Management processes.

The cost-effectiveness of Stakeholder Management is evaluated.

The stakeholder analysis toolkit is regularly assessed for effectiveness and updated when appropriate.

planning tools are integrated with project stakeholder analysis tools.

3.7 Resource Management – Level 1

Resource management is assessed at the project level as being at level 1.

Project resources are allocated on an ad hoc basis with only recognition of particular skills and competencies. Resource needs are fulfilled and managed through


discussions and prioritisation with senior managers. There are no documented resource management standards or formal processes for projects to plan their resourcing requirements. There was little evidence of resource forecasting and the requirements in terms of skills and competency requirements tailored to project complexity or risk.

The resource requirements across all projects should be assessed and any discrepancies highlighted. Resource utilisation is tracked informally. There was no evidence of procedures for reporting of resource utilisation and little formal evidence of actions taken to alleviate problems caused due to the over-commitment of staff.

Projects procure external resources (when necessary) using an allocated and approved budget the majority of the time. Project proposals do include resourcing profiles but this should form part of any project justification and prioritisation. It is hoped that a common EPM software rollout in 2016 will provide more information to enable integrated resource plans. 3.7.1 Attribute Level Assessment Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 1. Awareness. Project plans identify the resources required through the project’s lifecycle.

2. Repeatable. Project plans include a detailed analysis of resource requirements, including characteristics (e.g. technical skills, behavioural competencies), availability, recruitment/procurement and disposal.

3. Consistent. The organisation has a centrally defined and adopted set of procedures and management processes for procuring and managing resources. Project procurement is undertaken to common standards and there are supply chain frameworks in place for project to use.

4. Managed. Quantitative information is used to assess the effectiveness of resource management for the organisation’s projects.

5. Optimising. The organisation’s resources are deployed optimally. There is clear evidence of capacity planning, load balancing and the effective use of both internal and external project resources in accordance with a resource strategy.

Project generally identify their resource requirements.

Projects identify the resource that require external procurement. The approach to procurement may be ad hoc.

Rudimentary information regarding requirements for

Projects manage their resourcing and procurement needs, but the approach may vary from project to project.

There is evidence of local resource planning, but tends to focus on tracking rather than forecasting.

Projects undertake structured

There is a centrally defined and adopted set of procedures in place for resource management.

Project procurement is undertaken to common standards and there are supply chain frameworks in place with the external

Resource utilization and efficiency is tracked and quantitatively measured corporately.

Project procurement is integrated with corporate procurement processes and frameworks.

Resource management is a

Strategic business planning has project resource planning embedded within it.

There are active strategies for development of internal capacity and capability.

Resource allocation based on resource availability and competency requirements


resourcing and procurement is recorded.

Someone is responsible for resource management on the project (typically allocated to the Project Manager).

procurement, but using localised processes.

There is localised use of resources forecasting and estimation techniques.

Resource forecasting in terms of skills and competency requirements generally tailored to project complexity or risk.

There has been basic training on in the concepts of Resource management.

Roles and responsibilities for Resource Management are generally understood.

Local Resource Management reviews are built in to the project’s progress reviews.

Potential issues arising from resource availability identified and escalated.

Resource Management status reports are built into the project’s progress reports

market for provision of resources to meet shortages and expertise peaks.

Work to be carried out by third parties or contractors defined and planned in accordance with documented procedures and reviewed at key milestones or project stages.

Project plans are reviewed to take account of resource plans and dependencies.

Evidence of induction and extraction planning and activities when joining project teams.

Projects supplement in-house resources and knowledge in a structured way to optimise the costs.

There has been specific training and skills development in Resource management techniques and tools

There is a standard set of roles and responsibilities in place for resource management for all projects.

There is resource management expertise available to advise projects

The organisation undertakes resource management audits of its projects (perhaps as

key competence for people involved in project delivery.

There is a corporate resource management expert (possibly from a centre of excellence) responsible for the organisation’s resource management capability.

Active leveraging of supply chain to optimize resource utilization between internal and external resource pools.

There are regular reviews of the resource management approach and toolkits to ensure they are continuing to remain optimal.

Training and development focused on performance improvement rather than qualifications.

Clear competency profiles and development paths are defined for project management roles.

Mentoring or coaching is used to facilitate competency development and knowledge transfer.

Central resource management tools in place and maintained .

Project teams collaborate at organizational level for opportunities to share critical or limited resources.

across projects. Project managers have an

understanding of business processes and objectives and are able to ensure that project resources are sufficiently focused on business needs.

There is senior management ownership of capability building and associated threats/opportunities.

Resource management is a core skill in all levels of management

Review of Resource management effectiveness is part of corporate continual improvement.

Executive Board has clear visibility of resource requirements for its key projects.

Executive Board has clear visibility of the resource utilisation/requirements for its portfolio of projects.

Organisational knowledge is developed by the use of external resources and embedded within teams.


part of a wider audit scheme). Such reviews seek opportunities for improvement as well as compliance.

There are utilisation forecasts for projects using common and defined techniques. Resource utilisation/ requirements information is up to date and consistently recorded.


4 Appendix - List of Interviews

Bronwyn Battersby, Centre Manager and Emma Quinlan, Project Admin (CSRM) David Brereton, Director of the People centres (CSRM, MISHC) Taryn Donnelly, SMI Finance Manager, (SMI Office) David Cliff, Program Leader, (Former MISHC director) Travis Murphy, Researcher, (BRC) David Mulligan, Director of the Environment Centres, (CMLR, CWiMI) Chris Moran, SMI Director (SMI Office) Lisa Kennedy, Research Partnerships Manager (SMI Office) Hannah Fry, Project Officer (SMI Office) Irene Dullaway, Centre Manager (BRC) Victoria Anderson, Deputy Director Operations Kathryn Sturman, Researcher (CSRM) Grant Ballantyne, Researcher (JKMRC) Neil McIntyre, Program Leader (Former CWiMI director) Philipp Kirsch, Researcher (MISHC) Tracey Gregg, Centre Manager (CMLR) Robin Burgess-Limerick, Researcher (MISHC) Ian Callow, Business Development (CWiMI) Adrian Xavier, SMI IT Manager (SMI Office) Elise Neilson, Head of SMI legal (SMI Office) Sarma Kanchibotla, Researcher (JKMRC) Emmanuel Manlapig, Researcher (JKMRC) Gideon Chitombo, Researcher (BRC)

SMI PROJECT MANAGEMENT MATURITY BASELINE REPORT...SMI Project Management Maturity Baseline Report 3...

Documents

Transcript of SMI PROJECT MANAGEMENT MATURITY BASELINE REPORT...SMI Project Management Maturity Baseline Report 3...