Version 1.0– June 18, 2013 Leveraging the Texas Project Delivery Framework and.

Version 1.0– June 18, 2013

http://www.dir.texas.gov/management/projectdelivery/pages/overview.aspx

Leveraging the Texas Project Delivery Framework and Quality Assurance Team as

Resources For Project Success

State of TexasDepartment of Information ResourcesLeadership for Texas Government Technology

2

Topics Covered

Model for Project Delivery and Oversight

Components of the Model: Tools and Processes

Project Delivery Framework

Timeline for Framework Deliverable Submissions

Major Information Resource Project

Agency Project Management Practices

Quality Assurance Team (QAT)

Analysis of Project Overruns

Leveraging the Framework Tools and the QAT to Reduce Project Risks


3

Model for Project Delivery and Oversight

Project Approval

Project Review and MonitoringQAT

QAT Project Portfolio

LEVELS

PROCESSES

Framework Business JustificationProject Planning, Solicitation and Contracting, Project

Implementation Benefits Realization

Initiation Plan Execute Control CloseoutPMI Model

STANDARD


4

In a nutshell, the Framework is a….

-Guidance and a -Toolset

For IR Projects and Contracts

Establishes a consistent, statewide method for project selection, control and evaluation aligned with business goals and objectives

Shifts focus from technology details to prioritized business goals and outcomes

Requires involvement of agency heads and other executive leaders

Ensures a process to Justify a project, including alternative solutions

Plan a project

Outsource a project

Implement a project

Assess a project

What is the Project Delivery Framework?


5

Use Framework Lifecycle with Various SDLC Methodologies


6

Top Project Delivery Framework Misconceptions

Based on statewide perspective and observation

Misconception RealityFramework is set in stone Statewide change management mechanisms exist

Framework is the project management methodology Framework is a toolset

Project deliverables are documents only Project deliverables represent activities and outcomes

Framework or Quality Assurance Team dictates project management practices or outcomes

Agency defines project management practices and outcomes

Programs and projects are managed the same Whether to manage effort as program or project is a critical decision

Agency involvement with procurement projects is minimal

Agency drives business outcomes that involve procurement


7

TAC Chapter 216: Project Management (PM) Practices

Agencies should:

Have project management practices that are documented, repeatable, and include a single reference source…to effectively apply use of the project management practices and components

Include a method for delivery of projects that solves business problems

Include a method for governing application of project management practices

Include a project classification method developed by DIR, the agency, or another source

Include a method to periodically review, assess, monitor, and measure the impact of the project management practices

Align PM practices with use of the Framework (agency can accommodate use of other frameworks)


8

Quality Assurance Team (QAT)

QAT is comprised of three representatives-one from each of the following agencies: LBB, SAO, and DIR

QAT Functions: Monitors risks and performs oversight activities associated with the

development of major information resource projects (MIRPs)

Risk: Likelihood that a project will not deliver a quality solution based on the timeline, budget, and scope commitments made to legislature when submitting the Legislative Appropriations Request (LAR)

Approves projects before expenditure of appropriated funds based on analysis of project risks

Reports the status of MIRPs to state leadership

Determining the frequency of monitoring (monthly or quarterly)

Performs approval of contract amendments if project costs exceed 10% or original total budget

QAT can request detailed project information, Framework deliverable updates, audits, or assistance as necessary


9

Review Definition of a Major Project

Major information resources project (MIRP) means (per TEX GOV’T CODE §2054.003 (10)):

(A) any information resources technology project identified in a state agency's biennial operating plan whose development costs exceed $1 million and that:(i) requires one year or longer to reach operations status;

(ii) involves more than one state agency; OR

(iii) substantially alters work methods of state agency personnel or the delivery of services to clients; OR

(B) any information resources technology project designated by the legislature in the General Appropriations Act as a major information resources project

Note:

The $1 million threshold includes agency FTE costs.

Use of the Framework is encouraged for non-major IR projects


10

Functions Outside of QAT

Contract review and solicitation review: Major contract reviews are performed by the Contract Advisory Team (CAT)

Project management: All agencies are responsible and accountable for project management practices and outcomes

Technical assistance Note: The Department of Information Resources (DIR) provides

consultation services to agencies, while recognizing that agencies are ultimately accountable for project outcomes


11

Submission Requirements Timeline


12

Portfolio of QAT Projects: Number of Projects

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 201440

50

60

70

80

90

100

50

60

52

4648

52

55

74

89

Total Number of Projects (approximations)


13

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 $-

$500,000,000.00

$1,000,000,000.00

$1,500,000,000.00

$2,000,000,000.00

$2,500,000,000.00

$3,000,000,000.00

$3,500,000,000.00

$772,100,000.00 $786,100,000.00

$1,044,000,000.00 $1,035,000,000.00 $1,050,000,000.00

$1,310,000,000.00

$1,500,000,000.00

$2,402,000,000.00

$2,900,000,000.00

Project Costs (approximations)Pr

ojec

t Cos

ts in

Bill

ions

of D

olla

rs

Portfolio of QAT Projects: Project Costs


14

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 $-

$500,000,000.00

$1,000,000,000.00

$1,500,000,000.00

$2,000,000,000.00

$2,500,000,000.00

$3,000,000,000.00

$3,500,000,000.00

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Project Costs and Number (approximations)Project Cost # of Projects

Proj

ect C

osts

in B

illio

ns o

f Dol

lars

(Red

)N

umber of Projects

Portfolio of QAT Projects: Trends


15

SAO Report 13-028: Analysis of QAT Projects

SAO Report 13-028/ March 2013Analysis of QAT Projects

Total Project Cost

Pro

ject

Sch

edul

e

Quadrant I: Over-budget and Over-schedule

Quadrant II: Within budget and Over-schedule

(Target) Quadrant III: Within budget and Within schedule

Quadrant IV: Over budget and Within schedule

3

12

Original budget/original schedule

2

4

13

9

5

11 1

8P18P2

6 7

10

Legend

Project which is within budget and within schedule

Project which is over budget and within schedule or within budget and behind schedule

Project which is over budget and behind schedule


16

Reasons for Project Overruns As Cited By Agencies

SAO Report 13-028: Analysis of QAT Projects

Vendor negotiations and bidding process delays

Legislative requirements change and/or requirements not well defined/scope changes

Turnover in project management and other key staff

Cost and timelines were underestimated

Lack of management support/stakeholder expectations not managed/priorities within agency changed

Project objectives and roles and responsibilities not clearly defined or understood


17

Other Factors

Failing to break large projects into smaller/manageable pieces

Relying on the Framework as a replacement for project management practices per TAC §216

Posting solicitations without effective project planning- divergence of contract management and project management

Initiating a major information resource project in a non-prescribed manner

Confusing QAT responsibilities with agency responsibilities for project activities or outcomes and decisions

Attempting to exceed project scope and quality expectations

Failing to communicate vendor performance issues that affect project outcomes


18

Leverage Framework Tools and QAT to Reduce Risks

Reason for Project Overruns Tools Which Can Help Reduce Reasons/Risks Associated With Project Overruns

Vendor Negotiations and Bidding Process Delays Project Plan (incl. Supplemental Tools), Acquisition Plan, Co-Operative Contracts, Review Gate Approvals, Monitoring Reports

Legislative Requirements Change and/or Requirements Are Not Well Defined/Scope Changes

Iterative Development of Project Plan (incl. Supplemental Tools-Change Control, Risk Register, Quality Register), Software/System Requirements Templates

Turnover in Project Management and Other Key Staff

Prevention of turnover not directly applicable to Framework tools, however, Risk Register can help plan for these events

Cost and Timelines Were Underestimated Business Case/Workbook and Checklists, Monitoring Reports. Work Breakdown Structure, Scheduling Tool

Lack of Management Support/Stakeholder Expectations Not Managed/Priorities Within Agency Changed

Project Plan (incl. Supplemental Tools-RACI, Communications Register, Risk Register), Monitoring Reports

Project Objectives and Roles and Responsibilities Not Clearly Defined or Understood

Project Plan (incl. Supplemental Tools-RACI, Risk Register), Project Charter, Business Case/Workbook, Checklists, Review Gate Approvals


19

Framework Main Page

Framework Website: Gateway For Information

http://www.dir.texas.gov/management/projectdelivery/projectframework/Pages/Framework.aspx


20

Resources

CONTACT INFORMATION FOR GENERAL QUESTIONS [email protected]

QUICK REFERENCE (WHAT’S REQUIRED TO BE SUBMITTED TO QAT?) Framework Quick Reference Link

WHAT IS THE STATEWIDE PROJECT DELIVERY PROGRAM? Statewide Project Delivery Program Link

WHERE CAN I FIND MORE INFORMATION ABOUT QAT? Link to QAT Publications Website

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.dir.texas.gov/management/projectdelivery/projectframework/pages/submissionapproval.aspx#quickref

http://www.dir.texas.gov/management/projectdelivery/projectframework/pages/submissionapproval.aspx

http://qat.state.tx.us/pubs.htm

Version 1.0– June 18, 2013 Leveraging the Texas Project Delivery Framework and.

Documents

Transcript of Version 1.0– June 18, 2013 Leveraging the Texas Project Delivery Framework and.