Department of Human Services P3M3 Assessment Report v1.2

P3M3® Assessment Report

Department of Human Services (DHS)

Version

1.2

Date Created

17 September 2010

Date Updated

Wednesday 23 September 2010

© 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.

P3M3® is a registered Trade Mark of the Office of Government Commerce in the United Kingdom and other countries.

Classification

P3M3® Assessment Report

Document Control

Classification Task DHS P3M3®

Version DHS P3M3 Ass Rep v1 2 Author Tanner James

of 46 Created 17 September 2010 Updated 23 September 2010

Approvals

Name Organisation Signature & Date

Michelle Crosby DHS

Distribution List

Name Position

Melissa McClusky (Chair) SDR Coordination First Assistant Secretary

Jennifer Cooke First Assistant Secretary Program Management

Jennifer Gale Chief Financial Officer

Di White First Assistant Secretary A/g Strategic Support

Tuan Dao ICT Core Infrastructure First Assistant Secretary

Michelle Crosby

Assistant Secretary Project Reporting

John Barnes National Manager Information Technology

Simon Edwards Assistant Secretary A/g Business Projects

Peter Cotterill Assistant Secretary ICT Capability and Support

Brigid Smith Assistant Director SDR Program Reporting Branch

Lawrie Kirk Principal Consultant & Registered P3M3 Consultant

Hendrik Immonen Senior Consultant

Revision History

Date Version Modified By Changes Made, Review History

17/09/2010 1.0 Lawrie Kirk and Hendrik Immonen

Initial draft

23/09/10 1.2 Lawrie Kirk and Hendrik Immonen

Revisions to summaries and charts, final edits

Contents




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

1 Purpose .........................................................................................................................6

2 Scope ............................................................................................................................6

2.1 Inclusions.............................................................................................................6 2.1.1 Exclusions ...............................................................................................6 2.1.2 Assessment background..........................................................................6 2.1.3 Assessment approach .............................................................................6

2.2 Assessment report ...............................................................................................7

3 Current P3M3 Maturity levels .........................................................................................8

3.1 Maturity Summary................................................................................................8 3.2 Key terminology ...................................................................................................9 3.3 Portfolio management maturity description ...........................................................9

3.3.1 Portfolio management control ................................................................ 10 3.3.2 Portfolio benefits management .............................................................. 11 3.3.3 Portfolio financial management .............................................................. 12 3.3.4 Portfolio stakeholder management......................................................... 13 3.3.5 Portfolio risk management ..................................................................... 14 3.3.6 Portfolio organisational governance ....................................................... 15 3.3.7 Portfolio resource management ............................................................. 16

3.4 Portfolio generic attributes.................................................................................. 17 3.5 Programme management maturity description.................................................... 18

3.5.1 Programme management control ........................................................... 19 3.5.2 Programme benefits management ......................................................... 20 3.5.3 Programme financial management......................................................... 21 3.5.4 Programme stakeholder management ................................................... 22 3.5.5 Programme risk management ................................................................ 23 3.5.6 Programme organisational governance.................................................. 24 3.5.7 Programme resource management ........................................................ 25

3.6 Programme generic attributes ............................................................................ 26 3.7 Project management maturity description ........................................................... 27

3.7.1 Project management control .................................................................. 28 3.7.2 Projects benefits management............................................................... 29 3.7.3 Project financial management ................................................................ 30 3.7.4 Project stakeholder management........................................................... 31 3.7.5 Project risk management ....................................................................... 32 3.7.6 Project organisational governance ......................................................... 33 3.7.7 Project resource management ............................................................... 34

3.8 Project generic attributes.................................................................................... 35

Appendix A: P3M3 overview................................................................................................ 36

Appendix B: Scoring sheet summaries: .............................................................................. 39

DHS P3M3® Assessment Report




EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A P3M3 assessment of the Department of Human Service (DHS) ICT-enabled change portfolio and constituent programmes and projects was conducted between the 30

th August

and 14th September 2010.

The following P3M3 maturity levels have been derived from that assessment by way of interviewing selected DHS staff. This also included staff from the CRS Australia (CRS) and Child Support Agency (CSA). In total 25 individuals were interviewed to assess the maturity of portfolio, programme and project management practices.

DHS’s current P3M3 rating is assessed as:

• Current maturity level of 2 in the Portfolio Management sub-model.

There are well documented and defined processes in place for management control, financial management and organisational governance. Each of these perspectives has been rated at a maturity level of 3.

The management of benefits, stakeholders, risk and resource management has been rated at a maturity level 2. Whilst they are repeatable they are yet to be fully defined or consistently adopted across DHS. These represent areas that need reinforcing and specifically capacity planning and prioritisation of resources.

Resource management (and specifically the ability to plan for resourcing peaks and troughs) is not consistently undertaken at a portfolio, programme or project level. Improved resource planning could be a catalyst for more efficient integration and skill sharing across the new DHS Portfolio.

As there were perspectives rated at maturity level 2 the overall rating for portfolio management was a 2.

• Current maturity level of 2 in the Programme Management sub-model.

There is some awareness of programme management within DHS; however this varies from basic to mature. The application of programme management varies across DHS and is dependent upon some key individuals.

Each perspective was rated at a maturity level of 2 which indicates a repeatable process but inconsistencies in approach specifically in benefit management, risk management, change management and communications.

Benefit realisation, particularly in the Service Delivery Reform (SDR) Program, is an area that needs to have its current focus maintained as it will be the foundation for future ongoing funding.

Whilst a level 2 rating has been provided, effort will need to be made to maintain this level in each perspective.





• Current maturity level of 2 in the Project Management sub-model.

A maturity level of 2 indicates that some areas of DHS are using a standard approach to the management of projects but this is not consistent across the whole organisation. Each of the seven perspectives has been ranked at a level 2.

Whilst a greater emphasis has been placed on the recognition of benefits at a project level, there needs to be improved links with the benefit management approach being undertaken at a programme level. Resource management and specifically the proactive management of resourcing peaks and troughs is an area that also needs attention.

Many staff members claim knowledge of a preferred project management method but it is not mandatory. Work has commenced on establishing a working group that is looking at the integration of project management methods across DHS.

This report has been presented based on the three sub models of portfolio, programme and project. Within each sub model an overview of the assessment and key observations for each of the seven perspectives is provided. The following diagram provides an overview of the maturity levels for the three sub-models and the individual perspectives.

2 3Portfolio

Management

(Level 2)

Programme

Management

(Level 2)

Project

Management

(Level 2)

3

3

2

2

Perspectives rated at level 3

Perspectives rated at level 2

Summary of DHS P3M3 maturity levels





1 PURPOSE The purpose of this assessment report is to:

• Document DHS’s current P3M3 maturity levels; and

• Provide visibility of observations used to substantiate these levels.

2 SCOPE

2.1 Inclusions The P3M3 assessment covered the portfolio, programme and project activities across DHS. This included sampling sufficient programmes and projects to create a representative sample set for DHS. Twenty five staff members were interviewed over a three week period from 30

th

August 2010. This also included staff from the CRS Australia (CRS) and Child Support Agency (CSA).

2.1.1 Exclusions

No areas of DHS were excluded from the assessment.

2.1.2 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.

The tool used for the P3M3 assessment was developed by the APM Group Ltd (APMG) under licence from the Office of Government Commerce (OGC). An overview of the P3M3 assessment tool is provided in Appendix A.

2.1.3 Assessment approach

Prior to conducting interviews, Tanner James made an assessment of current documentation of management processes to gain an initial understanding of the level of documentation (for all three sub models), 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.

Interviews were conducted with individuals at the portfolio level in the roles of Portfolio Director and members of a peak decision making body. Interviews were also conducted with individuals at the programme and project levels. Some people interviewed had been involved at both programme and project levels during their career at DHS; this has enriched the assessment given these interviewees’ breadth of experience.

A summary of the survey responses highlighting the spread of individual assessments (not attributed due to agreed confidentiality reasons) is provided in Appendix B.





2.2 Assessment report

This report details the current P3M3 rating attained from Tanner James’ assessment of information gathered from interviews and an analysis of relevant process documentation. A description is provided from the OGC’s P3M3 model for each score attained. Key observations are provided for each of the following seven management perspectives:

• Management control;

• Benefits management;

• Financial management;

• Stakeholder management;

• Risk management;

• Organisational governance; and

• Resource management.

This report does not indicate proposed target levels for each sub model. The Capability Improvement Plan (CIP) associated with this assessment will document DHS’s target P3M3 maturity levels and how DHS intends to achieve these levels.





3 CURRENT P3M3 MATURITY LEVELS

0

1

2

3

4

5

Management Control

Benefits Management

Financial Management

Stakeholder Management

Risk Management

Organisational Governance

Resource Management

Generic Attributes

project

programme

portfolio

(NB: As the project and programme sub model have the same maturity levels of 2, the project line has been overlaid by the programme line)

3.1 Maturity Summary

Process Perspectives

Sub-m

odel

Maturity level

Management

Control

Benefits

Management

Financial

Management

Stakeholder

Management

Risk

Management

Organisational

Governance

Resource

Management

Generic

Attributes Score

Portfolio Management

2 3 2 3 2 2 3 2 2

Programme Management

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Project Management

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

1 Awareness of process Organisation recognises programme/projects but has little structured approach to conducting them

2 Repeatable process Some areas beginning to use standard approaches but limited consistency across the organisation

3 Defined process A centrally controlled set of standards being used across the organisation with clear process owners

4 Managed process The organisation monitors, measures and improves its delivery processes based on evidence or performance based information

5 Optimised process Organisation focuses on optimisation of its quantitatively managed process taking into account changing business needs & external factors. Anticipates future capacity &

capability requirements





3.2 Key terminology

Benefit: the measurable improvement resulting from an outcome perceived as an advantage

by one or more DHS stakeholders.

Portfolio: the totality of DHS’s investment (or segment thereof) in the changes required to achieve its strategic objectives.

Programme: a temporary, flexible organisation created to coordinate, direct and oversee the

implementation of a set of related projects and activities in order to deliver outcomes and benefits related to DHS’s strategic objectives.

Project: a temporary organisation that is created for the purpose of delivering one or more

DHS business outputs according to a specified business case.

3.3 Portfolio management maturity description

DHS has been assessed as having a maturity level of 2 in the Portfolio Management sub-model. There are well documented and defined processes in place for management control, financial management and organisational governance. There are repeatable (yet to be fully defined or consistently adopted across DHS) processes for the management of benefits, stakeholder, risk and resource management.

Key observations for each of the seven perspectives reviewed under the portfolio sub process model are provided. These observations are not attributed as per agreed confidentiality interview requirements. Observations and comments related to training needs or capability improvement will be used in the CIP.

0

1

2

3

4

5

Management Control

Benefits Management



Risk Management


Resource Management

Generic Attributes

Overview of portfolio perspective maturity levels.





3.3.1 Portfolio management control (assessed at level 3)

A level 3 assessment for management control implies that portfolio management processes are centrally defined, documented and understood, as are roles and responsibilities for delivery.

1

Observations

Observations from the interviews were:

• There is evidence of a cohesive and stable leadership team who are committed to manage change across existing divisional boundaries;

• A portfolio approach is recognised as being the Management Board’s responsibility (which includes their delegated authorities) and a priority has been given to a management structure that supports delivery at a portfolio level;

• There is a standard documented approach to ensuring portfolio initiatives are aligned to policy and strategy;

• There is a standard approach to integrating portfolio initiatives into business as usual; and

• Roles and responsibilities at the portfolio level are defined and clearly understood.

1 OGC, 2010, http://www.p3m3-officialsite.com/nmsruntime/saveasdialog.asp?lID=457&sID=166, page 3, accessed 20/09/10

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.





3.3.2 Portfolio benefits management (assessed at level 2)

A level 2 assessment implies that 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.

2

Observations


• When decisions are made on investments benefits are sometimes listed and occasionally measurable.

• There is a strong awareness of financial and non-financial benefits.

• Benefits identification and management has commenced and is being addressed in the SDR Program but is not consistent across the organisation at a portfolio level; and

• The tracking of ongoing benefits realisation at a DHS portfolio level is inconsistent.


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.





3.3.3 Portfolio financial management (assessed at level 3)

A level 3 assessment implies that there are established standards for the investment management process and the preparation of business cases. Portfolio investment costs are monitored and controlled.

3

Observations


• An investment board exists at the portfolio level that prioritises investment and tracks financial progress;

• A virtual investment pool has been established at a portfolio level to fund major and high priority change initiatives prior to legislation being approved;

• Business and portfolio planning cycles work concurrently;

• Expenditures and forecasts are monitored at the portfolio level in accordance with DHS guidelines and procedures;

• Criteria within the portfolio for investment decision making are clear and communicated;

• Portfolio management processes include effective planning of funding availability;

• Integrated financial reporting exists across business areas which includes trend data;

• Common processes exist for the establishment of business cases and investment proposals; and

• All change initiatives require a business case, and there is criteria used for their evaluation.



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.





3.3.4 Portfolio stakeholder management (assessed at level 2)

A level 2 assessment implies portfolios will be communicated to stakeholders, but this is linked more to the personal initiative of portfolio managers than to a structured approach deployed by the organization.

4

Observations


• The need for stakeholder engagement is recognised;

• At a portfolio level stakeholder needs are identified and are in the process of being documented in a portfolio engagement strategy;

• Stakeholders, particularly those represented through Interdepartmental Committees, are involved in decision making;

• Generic stakeholder engagement tools are in place and categorise stakeholders at a portfolio level;

• A structure has been established to identify and track communications with portfolio stakeholders (internal and external);

• Communication channels vary and are used to target and deliver messages to stakeholders;

• Expertise is being provided by a specialist internal communication division; and

• There is little evidence yet of sophisticated analysis techniques in place to underpin the measurement of the effectiveness of stakeholder management at the portfolio level.


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.





3.3.5 Portfolio risk management (assessed at level 2)

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

A level 2 assessment implies that there is generally a top-down approach to risk identification, focusing on major organizational 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.

5

Observations


• Risks can be identified and tracked at the portfolio level;

• A risk management plan exists at portfolio level, with risks determined by category;

• the Audit Committee reviews the risk framework and risk management plan at least annually;

• There is some proactive management of risk, with mitigation plans occasionally in place, but such plans are usually unfunded;

• There is some inconsistency in the application of risk management frameworks at the portfolio level, with risk assessment templates using a four by four matrix and the portfolio risk management plan using a five by five matrix;

• The practice of assigning ownership and management of risks to individuals at the portfolio level is inconsistent; and

• There are central areas available to assist in risk management, however in practice their use does not appear to be mandatory.


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.





3.3.6 Portfolio organisational governance (assessed at level 3)

A level 3 assessment implies centrally defined organizational controls are applied consistently to the portfolio(s), with decision-making structures in place and linked to organizational governance.

6

Observations


• The establishment of an effective organisational governance structure at the portfolio level was identified as a priority in the portfolio risk management plan, and this appears to have been followed through;

• There are regular and consistent portfolio governance meetings that consider the impact of external factors on DHS;

• Central organisational controls are being applied consistently across the portfolio, with decision making structures in place;

• Organisational reports are prepared periodically, which cover strategic priorities and corporate functions;

• Business performance information is acquired and reviewed monthly by the Management Board;

• There is a clear, defined vision for organisational change, as evidenced through the SDR Program, with senior management demonstrating commitment to it; and

• There is effective use of assurance services provided by both internal and external service providers.



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.





3.3.7 Portfolio resource management (assessed at level 2)

A level 2 assessment implies that the organization 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.

7

Observations


• A People Committee has been established to consider how DHS develops the capability of its staff;

• No evidence exists of resource plans in place and in use at the portfolio level;

• Resource management is being undertaken through separate approaches across DHS on an initiative by initiative approach;

• When allocating resources, there is limited assessment of the impact on other initiatives or business areas;

• There is no evidence of a formal portfolio resource pool being used by initiatives to identify staff with the appropriate skill sets;

• Whilst business cases are the drivers behind new initiatives, the capacity of business areas to resource the initiatives is a limiting factor; and

• There is no evidence of the use of resource utilisation tools at the portfolio level.


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.





3.4 Portfolio generic attributes (assessed at a level 2)

Roles and Responsibilities. Level 3 is defined as centrally managed role definitions and sets of competencies defined and used to secure appointments.

Experience in Portfolio 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.

Planning and 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 management effectively.

Information and 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 and review. Level 3 is defined as independent reviews take place; scrutiny largely for compliance reasons, identifying failures rather than opportunities for improvement.





3.5 Programme management maturity description

DHS has been assessed as having a maturity level of 2 in the Programme Management sub-model.

There is some awareness of programme management within DHS; however this varies from basic to mature. The application of programme management varies across DHS and is dependent upon some key individuals. There is variable knowledge and understanding of the use and tailoring of the OGC approach to programme management across DHS.

Each perspective was rated at a maturity level of 2 which indicates a repeatable process but with inconsistencies in approach specifically in benefit management, risk management, change management and communications. Whilst a level 2 rating has been provided, effort will need to be made to maintain this level.

Key observations for each of the seven perspectives reviewed under the programme sub process model are provided. These observations are not attributed as per agreed confidentiality interview requirements. Observations and comments related to training needs or capability improvement will be used in the CIP.

0

1

2

3

4

5

Management Control

Benefits Management



Risk Management


Resource Management

Generic Attributes

Overview of programme perspective maturity levels.





3.5.1 Programme management control (assessed at level 2)

A level 2 assessment implies that the concepts of programme management will have been grasped by the organization and there may be local experts, such as experienced programme managers, working on key programmes.

8

Observations


• The application of OGC methods is in its early stages but is proving to be a good framework for running programmes of work;

• The SDR Program, whilst currently in programme definition, has good controls in place such as a SDR Board and regular, fortnightly reporting

• There are pockets of good programme management, but the approach is not centrally defined, documented and applied to all programmes;

• In some cases interdependencies between projects are proving challenging to co-ordinate, which highlights a lack of a programme management approach in some cases;

• Expertise in programme management requires attention; with training of programme staff (including programme board members) currently being progressed by dedicated staff;

• Programme management language is not consistent yet across all programmes; and

• Management controls are not consistently implemented across all DHS programmes of work.


Management Control






3.5.2 Programme benefits management (assessed at level 2)

A level 2 assessment implies that benefits are recognised as an element within programme business cases. There may be some documentation regarding who is responsible for particular benefits and their realization, but this is unlikely to be followed through or consistent.

9

Observations


• A Benefits Management Strategy has been established for the SDR Program. Benefits management has been recognised and has received a significant focus in this programme;

• In some cases across DHS, there is limited evidence of benefits identification, tracking and realisation;

• Whilst benefit quantification is occurring at a project level in some cases, it is not always at the programme level;

• There is not a centrally managed and consistent framework for defining and tracking the realisation of benefits;

• Benefits management at a programme level is recognised but not well understood by staff working within all programmes or being consistently undertaken;

• Benefits are generally recognised by senior management as an element within business cases, however they are not consistently quantified or tolerances provided;

• Risks to harvesting benefits are not accounted for or documented consistently;

• Benefit owners are not assigned in all cases; and

• In some cases there is little incentive to realise benefits.


Benefits Management






3.5.3 Programme financial management (assessed at level 2)

A level 2 assessment implies that programme business cases are produced in various forms and the better and more formal cases will present the rationale on which to obtain organizational commitment to the programme.

10

Observations


• Repeatable financial management practices are beginning to emerge, with sound support being provided by corporate areas who are highly regarded;

• Business cases sometimes exist for programmes of work. In some cases, “business cases” are seen as unnecessary;

• Budgets sometimes exist for programmes of work. In some cases, a separate programme budget does not exist;

• Financial controls are in place and used in most cases in the management of investment through business cases and budgetary control;

• A collegiate approach to pooling funds is evident with some programmes of work;

• In some cases programme budgets are cut after the mandate has been approved and there is an expectation that the entire scope of the programme will still need to be delivered;

• The true costs and benefits of programmes are not defined in some cases, with resources remaining allocated to business as usual and the benefit savings not quantified;

• In some cases an aggregation of project budgets is used to determine the programme budget rather than a programme budget being set to deliver the programme plan; and

• Programme tolerances are not consistently established or used.








3.5.4 Programme stakeholder management (assessed at level 2)

A level 2 assessment implies that 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 organization.

11

Observations


• Stakeholder management appears to be done well with both internal and external clients. A centralised and documented structure is beginning to take shape but is not consistent across DHS;

• There is a strong awareness of stakeholders within each programme, however, approaches to engagement and communication vary;

• In some cases an audit trail of communications is not maintained at the programme level;

• The co-design concept is gaining acceptance as the standard for engagement with external stakeholders. However, the impact of co-design on resourcing has yet to be fully embraced;

• In some cases, stakeholders and their interdependencies are identified at a project level and not programme level;

• There are pockets of good corporate support for stakeholder engagement, however the use of these services is not consistent across all programmes;

• In some cases stakeholder management is undertaken at a project level and not a programme level; and

• The Business Change Manger role is not understood or used to assist with engagement and communication in all cases.








3.5.5 Programme risk management (assessed at level 2)

A level 2 assessment implies that risk management is recognized and used on programmes, but there are inconsistent approaches which result in different levels of commitment and effectiveness.

12

Observations


• There is evidence of good risk identification and analysis, however the broader concepts of risk management vary across programmes;

• There is a central corporate risk area that is occasionally used for risk identification workshops, however the use of this area is not mandatory, and could be extended to cover other risk management activities;

• In some cases, programme risk registers are being updated on a regular, periodic basis;

• Whilst risk is not a standing agenda item at programme governance meetings, risk information is shared and reported frequently to stakeholders;

• Programme risks (as opposed to project risks) are not being consistently captured and managed across all programmes;

• In some cases, mitigation planning is incomplete and requires further maturity;

• Programme risk management is in some cases focussed on the management of project risks and is not focused on strategic and operational risks linked to the programme vision, blueprint and plan;

• Risk management intervention points and reviews are not embedded within programme life cycles in all cases;

• Risk management is seen by some stakeholders as a “ticking the box” exercise; and

• There is little evidence of a central programme office looking for risks spanning across more than one programme, and aggregating their impact.


Risk Management






3.5.6 Programme organisational governance (assessed at level 2)

A level 2 assessment implies that programme management from an organizational 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.

13

Observations


• There is a strong awareness of the need for organisational governance in all programmes. However, there is variation in the organisational controls being applied, and they are not documented and consistently applied to all programmes;

• The SDR Program Board has senior commitment and strong alignment to corporate strategy;

• Whilst the use of existing organisational governance structures offers an efficiency for the management of new initiatives, there is a risk (without dedicated programme boards) of losing focus on individual change programme priorities;

• In some cases corporate functions such as central risk areas and communications areas are not referenced in the programme design and delivery;

• There is a lack of understanding of specific roles at a programme level across all programmes; and

• The role of Business Change Manager is not understood, reinforced or used in all cases.








3.5.7 Programme resource management (assessed at level 2)

A level 2 assessment implies that resources are being deployed across the organization and individual programmes have an approach to resource acquisition, planning or management. However there is little evidence of consistency of approach.

14

Observations


• A resource management strategy exists in some programmes, however this is not consistent across DHS;

• Individual programmes have their own approaches to resource acquisition, planning and management. For example, in one programme a dedicated staff member is focusing on training requirements for programme management team members, but this is not consistent across all programmes;

• Resource management (particularly managing for peaks and troughs) is undertaken through individual networks, and not coordinated centrally;

• Resource management is generally driven from a project level and not at a strategic level;

• Programme management experience is relatively new across DHS and is being built as key programmes progress;

• In some cases, programme resources reside in and are being shared and managed across business as usual activities with little clarity on time spent undertaking programme work;

• There is no evidence of formal documentation of resource agreements between business areas and programmes; and

• Training, when provided, is inconsistent and generally at a project level. There is no formal process for programme knowledge sharing across DHS.


Resource Management






3.6 Programme generic attributes (assessed at level 2)

Embedded within the process perspectives there are a number of generic attributes that are common to all perspective; these include planning, information management, and training and development.

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

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

Capability development Not applicable – interviewees not able to comment

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

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

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





3.7 Project management maturity description

DHS has been assessed as having a maturity level of 2 in the Project Management sub-model. Some areas of DHS are using a standard approach to the management of projects but this not consistent across the whole organisation. Many staff members claim knowledge of a preferred project management method but it is not mandatory. Work has commenced on establishing a working group that is looking at the integration of project management methods across DHS.

Whilst a greater emphasis has been placed on the recognition of benefits at a project level, there needs to be improved links with the benefit management approach being undertaken at a programme level. Resource management and specifically the proactive management of resourcing peaks and troughs is an area that also needs attention.

Key observations and comments provided for each of the seven perspectives reviewed under the project sub process model are provided. These observations are not attributed as per agreed confidentiality interview requirements. Observations and comments related to training needs or capability improvement will be used in the CIP.

0

1

2

3

4

5

Management Control

Benefits Management



Risk Management


Resource Management

Generic Attributes

Overview of project perspective maturity levels.





3.7.1 Project management control (assessed at level 2)

A level 2 assessment implies that the concepts of project management will have been grasped by the organisation, and there may be local experts, such as experienced project managers, working on key projects.

15

Observations


• In some cases, Project Offices provide templates and reporting infrastructure but they are not fully resourced to support people in using the framework. Project frameworks exist in different areas of DHS, but are not compulsory to use;

• Good systems are in place to capture status reporting and are being used in some areas of DHS. Some project managers feel that status reporting is excessive and not as integrated as it could be;

• Evidence suggested that all projects had a project manager and project sponsor and in most cases they had a clear understanding of their roles;

• There are concerns in some cases over the planning accuracy of the scope, timeframes and resources for projects. Projects frequently plan only to implementation and there is limited thought placed on post implementation activities, product support and their integration with business as usual;

• Project management training is ad hoc;

• Project management terminology is not understood by many staff in the organisation and some project documentation is seen as difficult to complete and a barrier to entry when starting up a project;

• There is a perception by some project managers that project documentation is not really read and understood by steering committee members; and

• During project start-up and initiation, a closer integration with users, business and suppliers is required to ensure a better understanding of requirements are obtained.


Management Control






3.7.2 Projects benefits management (assessed at level 2)

A level 2 assessment implies benefits are recognized as an element within project business cases. There may be some documentation regarding who is responsible for particular benefits and their realization, but this is unlikely to be followed through or consistent.

16

Observations


• There is a recognition of the need for benefits to be outlined in a project business case however, there is inconsistency in benefits identification and tracking at a project level across DHS;

• A centrally managed framework is not established across DHS for defining and tracking the realisation of benefits from project outputs;

• There is recognition of the need to use benefits for prioritising investments. However, they are not always measurable and there is not a strong culture of harvesting benefits from projects;

• There is little realisation of benefits proposed in projects. When it does occur, it is done by individuals and not coordinated centrally;

• In some cases, benefits, when identified, fall only to the project manager for ownership;

• Some project proposals are endorsed with little rigour or with little consideration of the impact of proposed benefits on other projects; and

• In some cases, benefits are selected or proposed but their quantification is not followed through.


Benefits Management






3.7.3 Project financial management (assessed at level 2)

A level 2 assessment implies that project business cases are produced in various forms and the better and more formal cases will present the rationale on which to obtain organizational commitment to the project. Overall cost of the project is not monitored or fully accounted for.

17

Observations


• Project business cases are produced in a variety of forms across DHS. In some cases, the overall cost of projects are not monitored or fully accounted for;

• In many cases, projects do not have specific funding or budgets, and are resourced through existing business as usual resources;

• There is evidence at divisional level of strong financial management, however the approach is inconsistent across DHS;

• Support from finance sections to project managers is recognised as being a real strength across DHS. Project managers indicate a high regard for the accuracy and timeliness of this support;

• Estimating skills in effort and duration are seen as two areas that would benefit from further development. Time recording is not consistently used across DHS;

• Business cases are not always raised, particularly for projects where a rapid response is required;

• Financial management techniques such as cost benefit analysis are not consistently used across DHS;

• Responsibility for the financial management of the project is inconsistent across DHS. For example, some project managers have responsibility for the travel budget only, with the project steering committee retaining overall responsibility for the financial management of the project;

• The application and management of project tolerances is inconsistent across DHS;

• Project proposals often do not capture the true cost of the project; and

• Issues and risks are not measured in financial terms.








3.7.4 Project stakeholder management (assessed at level 2)

A level 2 assessment implies projects will be communicated to stakeholders, but this is linked more to the personal initiative of project managers than to a structured approach being deployed by the organization.

18

Observations


• There is evidence of some projects using central stakeholder management and communication sections;

• The co-design concept is gaining acceptance at a project level as the new standard of engagement with external stakeholders. However, it is not centrally managed or consistent yet, and the impact of co-design on resourcing (including time taken to undertake it properly) has yet to be fully embraced;

• There have been some strong examples of stakeholder engagement across DHS and a consistent response from all project managers is that DHS values stakeholder management and strives to improve performance in this area;

• In some cases there is mis-alignment of timeframes and lead times for activities between project teams and corporate communication activities; and

• There is little evidence of separate budgets established for communications.








3.7.5 Project risk management (assessed at level 2)

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

A level 2 assessment implies that risk management is recognized and used on projects, but there are inconsistent approaches, which result in different levels of commitment and effectiveness.

19

Observations


• In some cases, risk management is seen as 'ticking the box' and not fully embraced as an important activity by stakeholders;

• Risk management is recognised and used on projects, particularly risk identification, but there are inconsistent risk frameworks in use, which result in varying levels of commitment and effectiveness;

• There are separate risk areas that are frequently used to assist with risk identification through workshops. However, there is inconsistency in their use;

• A common understanding is required of the philosophy and intent behind risks in project management, so risk management is not seen as an administrative activity;

• Project managers without formal project management or risk training have been tasked to identify, assess and manage risks in their own way;

• In some cases, risks are not regularly reviewed during the project lifecycle;

• In some cases, risks are monitored by the project office, but this is not consistent across DHS;

• Mitigation statements are written but often not followed through; and

• There is little evidence of contingency budgets being used consistently across DHS to fund risk management.


Risk Management






3.7.6 Project organisational governance (assessed at level 2)

A level 2 assessment implies that project management from an organizational 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.

20

Observations


• There is a strong awareness of the need to control and align project investment with the broader corporate strategy;

• Feedback from project steering committees and the Business Operations Committee to the project team vary in their format and consistency;

• Roles and responsibilities in project teams are generally understood, however they are not always documented;

• The composition of steering committees are left to the individual project sponsors to ascertain;

• Project assurance is used inconsistently across DHS; and

• There is a strong commitment of senior management on oversight of projects, through steering committees. Representation at steering committees is typically at a very senior level.








3.7.7 Project resource management (assessed at level 2)

A level 2 assessment implies that resources are being deployed across the organization and individual projects have an approach to resource acquisition, planning or management. However, there is little evidence of consistency of approach.

21

Observations


• Individual projects and project managers have their own approaches to resource management. There is little consistency across DHS or centralised support to manage the resourcing of peaks and troughs;

• In some cases, there is a lack of resources required to undertake projects or an audit of available skills across DHS to create a pool of expertise;

• Prioritising resources across projects is inconsistent across DHS; and

• Staff time is not consistently identified and tracked against specific projects. This results in staff being over-utilised.


Resource Management






3.8 Project generic attributes (assessed at level 2)

Embedded within the process perspectives there are a number of generic attributes that are common to all perspective; these include planning, information management, and training and development.

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

Experience in Project 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 if knowledge may exist but mostly ad hoc.

Planning and 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 used standard techniques.

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

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





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 P

rocess

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.

7 Process Perspectives

1. Management Control


2 Benefits Management


3. Financial Management


4. Stakeholder Management


5. Risk Management


6. Organisational Governance


7. Resource Management






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.





APPENDIX B: SCORING SHEET SUMMARIES:

The following scoring sheet summaries have been modified to ensure confidentiality of the interviews. The shaded areas show where scores were obtained however they do not show the number of specific scores. A median is provided as an indication of the distribution of scores.

Sub-Model Summary

Project Programme Portfolio Sub-model maturity level 2 2 2

Maturity Level

Perspective

Management Control 2 2 3

Benefits Management 2 2 2

Financial Management 2 2 3

Stakeholder Management 2 2 2

Risk Management 2 2 2


2 2 3

Resource Management 2 2 2

Generic Attributes 2 2 2





Project Programme Portfolio Management control maturity level

2 2 3

Project Yes always Yes sometimes

Occasionally Never

Not Applicable

Median

Level 1

YA

Level 2 YA

Level 3 NV

Level 4 NV

Level 5 NV

Programme Yes always Yes sometimes

Occasionally Never

Not Applicable

Median

Level 1 YA

Level 2 YS

Level 3 NV

Level 4 NV

Level 5 NV

Portfolio Yes always Yes sometimes

Occasionally Never

Not Applicable

Median

Level 1 YA

Level 2 YA

Level 3 YA

Level 4 NV

Level 5 NV





Project Programme Portfolio Benefits management maturity level

2 2 2


Occasionally Never

Not Applicable

Median

Level 1 YA

Level 2 YA

Level 3 NV

Level 4 NV

Level 5 NV


Occasionally Never

Not Applicable Median

Level 1 YA

Level 2 YS

Level 3 NV

Level 4 NV

Level 5 NV


Occasionally Never


Level 1 YA

Level 2 YA

Level 3 NV

Level 4 NV

Level 5 NV





Project Programme Portfolio Financial management maturity level

2 2 3


Occasionally Never

Not Applicable

Median

Level 1 YA

Level 2 YA

Level 3 NV

Level 4 NV

Level 5 NV


Occasionally Never


Level 1 YA

Level 2 YS

Level 3 NV

Level 4 NV

Level 5 NV


Occasionally Never


Level 1 YA

Level 2 YA

Level 3 YS

Level 4 NV

Level 5 NV





Project Programme Portfolio Stakeholder management

maturity level 2 2 2


Occasionally Never

Not Applicable

Median

Level 1 YA

Level 2 YA

Level 3 NV

Level 4 NV

Level 5 NV


Occasionally Never


Level 1 YA

Level 2 YS

Level 3 NV

Level 4 NV

Level 5 NV


Occasionally Never


Level 1 YA

Level 2 YA

Level 3 OC

Level 4 NV

Level 5 NV





Project Programme Portfolio Risk management

maturity level 2 2 2


Occasionally Never

Not Applicable

Median

Level 1 YA

Level 2 YA

Level 3 NV

Level 4 NV

Level 5 NV


Occasionally Never

Not Applicable

Median

Level 1 YA

Level 2 YA

Level 3 NV

Level 4 NV

Level 5 NV


Occasionally Never

Not Applicable

Median

Level 1 YA

Level 2 YA

Level 3 OC

Level 4 NV

Level 5 NV





Project Programme Portfolio Organisational governance maturity Level

2 2 3


Occasionally Never

Not Applicable

Median

Level 1 YA

Level 2 YA

Level 3 NV

Level 4 NV

Level 5 NV


Occasionally Never

Not Applicable

Median

Level 1 YA

Level 2 YS

Level 3 NV

Level 4 NV

Level 5 NV


Occasionally Never

Not Applicable

Median

Level 1 YA

Level 2 YA

Level 3 YA

Level 4 NV

Level 5 NV





Project Programme Portfolio Resource management maturity level

2 2 2


Occasionally Never

Not Applicable

Median

Level 1 YA

Level 2 YA

Level 3 NV

Level 4 NV

Level 5 NV


Occasionally Never

Not Applicable

Median

Level 1 YA

Level 2 YS

Level 3 NV

Level 4 NV

Level 5 NV


Occasionally Never

Not Applicable

Median

Level 1 YA

Level 2 YA

Level 3 NV

Level 4 NV

Level 5 NV

Department of Human Services P3M3 Assessment Report v1.2

Documents

Transcript of Department of Human Services P3M3 Assessment Report v1.2