P3 M3 Services 2v0 App

1,868 views
1,742 views

Published on

A presentation introducing P3M3 v2 and showing the range of support services from Outperform (an accredited consulting organisation license to undertake certification assessments using P3M3)

0 Comments
2 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,868
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
91
Comments
0
Likes
2
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

P3 M3 Services 2v0 App

  1. 1. Portfolio, Programme and Project Management Maturity Model (P3M3™) Assessment support services from Outperform<br />The Swirl logo™ is a Trade Mark of the Office of Government Commerce<br />P3M3™ a Trade Mark of the Office of Government Commerce <br />1<br />© Outperform UK Ltd<br />www.outperform.co.uk<br />
  2. 2. Contents<br />P3M3 Overview<br />Services from Outperform<br />P3M3 On-line Survey<br />P3M3 Discovery Assessment<br />P3M3 Diagnostic Assessment<br />P3M3 Certification Assessment<br />P3M3 Community Survey<br />P3M3 Roadmap Workshop<br />P3M3 Training<br />Case study<br />About Outperform<br />2<br />
  3. 3. P3M3 Overview<br />What is P3M3?<br />A maturity model developed and owned by the OGC (a UK Government Department)<br />Covers project, programme and portfolio management<br />Describes key attributes that organisations are expected to exhibit at five increasing levels of maturity<br />Breaks down the complexity of project, programme and portfolio management to enable improvement plans to be formulated<br />It has six primary uses<br />Discovering capabilities to determine which areas to concentrate on (may lead to a diagnostic assessment)<br />Diagnosing systemic weaknesses to eliminate root causes<br />Baselining current capability (for later comparison)<br />Benchmarking capability against other organisations (possibly to harvest best practice from a community)<br />Certifying capability through independent assessment<br />Prioritising improvement initiatives (based on any of the above)<br />3<br />
  4. 4. P3M3 v2 Model Structure<br />Indicate<br />Capability<br />Define<br />Goals/Purpose<br />Help<br />Deployment<br />Describe<br />Evidence<br />4<br />
  5. 5. P3M3 perspectives<br />5<br />
  6. 6. 6<br />P3M3 Maturity Levels<br />
  7. 7. 7<br />2%<br />4%<br /> 9%<br />85%<br />P3M3 Maturity Levels<br />(Process Improvement)<br />Deliberate optimisation/improvement<br />(Quantified)<br />Process management and measurement takes place<br />(Embedded)The process is defined/confirmed as a standard business process<br />- Documenting desired practices / Designing processes.<br />(Process discipline)<br />The process is used repeatedly<br />- Documenting current practices<br />(Chaotic, Ad Hoc, Heroic)<br />The starting point for use of a new process<br />
  8. 8. Performance improvements can be measured!<br />Process capability as indicated by maturity levels<br />
  9. 9. Performance improvements can be measured!<br />Process capability as indicated by maturity levels<br />Most expensive place to be<br />
  10. 10. P3M3 Services from Outperform<br />10<br />© Outperform UK Ltd<br />www.outperform.co.uk<br />
  11. 11. Typical engagement journey<br />Measurable <br />targets<br />Step 4How will you get there?<br />Step 1What is the context?<br />Progress metrics<br />Corporate Vision & Objectives<br />Improvementplan<br />Step 5How well did you do?<br />P3M3 scope<br />P3M3 ratings<br />Step 3Where do you want to be?<br />Step 2Where are you today?<br />11<br />
  12. 12. Outperform’s P3M3 Services<br />
  13. 13. P3M3 On-line Survey<br />Purpose<br />To baseline an organisation’s likely maturity against OGC’s P3M3<br />(optionally) to provide useful 360 degree input to consultant led assessments<br />Deliverables<br />Survey Plan<br />P3M3 Capability Assessment Report<br />Maturity dashboards<br />Benchmarking against Outperform’s results database<br />Skills profile<br />Respondents’ comments<br />Approach<br />Clients set up the survey by providing:<br />Name, organisation and email address of the applicant<br />Which models they are assessing (i.e. PjM3, PgM3, PfM3)<br />The expected maturity level<br />Survey start date, survey close date<br />Respondents’ mail addresses<br />Survey Execution<br />Respondents are quizzed about maturity at 3 levels only (one below/above the expected level) <br />Takes 10-15 minutes to complete<br />Non-respondents are sent reminders<br />When the survey closes the applicant is emailed an auto-generated report<br />13<br />
  14. 14. P3M3 On-line Survey Process<br />Note: It is possible to tailor the survey to client’s specific terminology and to include additional questions in support of any non-standard assessment objectives. Such amendments may incur some additional fees.<br />14<br />
  15. 15. P3M3 Discovery-lite Assessment<br />Purpose<br />To assist an organisation in assessing their maturity against OGC’s P3M3<br />A discovery of capability in order to prioritise improvement plans<br />To baseline current capability in order to track progress<br />Deliverables<br />Pre-assessment briefing<br />P3M3 Capability Assessment Report<br />Maturity Dashboard<br />Benchmarking against Outperform’s results database<br />Recommendations<br />Approach<br />Desk study of key documentation <br />Limited number of documents<br />Understand theoretical maturity<br />Interviews (1 day on-site)<br />Up to 4 people<br />Gather examples<br />Focus Group workshop (1 day on-site)<br />Contextual understanding<br />Rating relative importance<br />Produce report<br />Presentation of results (optional)<br />15<br />
  16. 16. P3M3 Discovery-lite Assessment Process<br />Note: Organisations that wish to develop an improvement roadmap are advised to undertake the full discovery service or the diagnostic service. Discovery-lite covers one model only (e.g. Project Management)<br />16<br />
  17. 17. P3M3 Discovery Assessment<br />Purpose<br />To assist an organisation in assessing their maturity against OGC’s P3M3<br />A discovery of capability in order to prioritise improvement plans<br />To baseline current capability in order to track progress<br />Deliverables<br />Pre-assessment briefing<br />P3M3 Capability Assessment Report<br />Maturity Dashboard<br />Benchmarking against Outperform’s results database<br />Recommendations<br />Approach<br />On-line survey<br />Unlimited respondents<br />Organisational data<br />Process usage<br />Skills profiles<br />360 degree opinions<br />Desk study of key documentation <br />Project/programme documents<br />Understand theoretical maturity<br />Interviews (2 days on-site)<br />Up to 8 people<br />Gather examples<br />Follow-up survey queries<br />Focus Group (1 day on-site)<br />Follow-up survey queries<br />Contextual understanding<br />Rating relative importance<br />Produce report<br />Presentation of results (optional)<br />17<br />
  18. 18. P3M3 Discovery Assessment Process<br />18<br />
  19. 19. P3M3 Diagnostic Assessment<br />Purpose<br />To use P3M3 to identify the root causes of an identified issue<br />To quantify potential cost savings and performance gains from planned improvement initiatives<br />Deliverables<br />Survey Report<br />Capability Assessment Report containing P3M3 results, observations relating to the assessment objective and key recommendations<br />Improvement Roadmap<br />(optional) Project Briefs for selected improvement initiatives<br />(optional) presentation of results<br />Approach<br />As per P3M3 Discovery Assessment but with<br />A more detailed desk study of the organisation’s PPM collateral<br />Additional interviews<br />Roadmap Workshop investigating root causes and formulating solutions<br />19<br />
  20. 20. P3M3 Diagnostic Assessment Process<br />20<br />
  21. 21. P3M3 Certification Assessment<br />Purpose<br />To assess an organisation against P3M3 in order to award a certificate for the level achieved<br />Deliverables<br />Assessment Plan<br />Application to APMG for P3M3 certification<br />P3M3 evidence submission to APMG<br />P3M3 dashboard<br />P3M3 certificate(s) if successful<br />Approach<br />Check readiness for certification<br />Scope assessment<br />Desk study of key documentation (against minimum set required by APM Group)<br />Interview of selected personnel (against the minimum number required by APM Group)<br />Aggregation of evidence to compile submission to APMG<br />Liaison with APM Group regarding submission of application form, APMG spot-check, submission of maturity rating, APMG verification of rating, award of certification<br />21<br />
  22. 22. Certification Assessment - Interviews by role<br />22<br />
  23. 23. P3M3 Certification Assessment Process<br />23<br />
  24. 24. P3M3 Community Survey<br />Purpose<br />To benchmark the individual and collective capability of a group of organisations against OGC’s P3M3<br />To provide a baseline for each participating organisation in the benchmark<br />To foster the sharing of best practice<br />Deliverables<br />P3M3 Capability Assessment Report (each participating organisation)<br />Maturity Dashboard<br />Benchmarking against Outperform’s results database and against the community results<br />Skills profile<br />Respondents’ comments<br />P3M3 community report (whole community)<br />Approach<br />Survey Set Up<br />agree the number of participating organisations, contact details and survey set-up data<br />Each organisation provides the respondents email addresses <br />Survey Execution<br />All organisations complete the same survey<br />Respondents are quizzed about maturity at 3 levels only (Levels 1 to 3) <br />Takes 10-15 minutes to complete<br />Non-respondents are sent auto-reminders<br />When the survey closes each organisation is emailed an auto-generated report for their own organisation<br />The consultant analyses the aggregated results, produces the community report and emails it to the community representative<br />24<br />
  25. 25. P3M3 Community Survey Process<br />25<br />
  26. 26. P3M3 Roadmap Workshop<br />Purpose<br />decide which items from the assessment should be addressed<br />understand the root causes of any problems identified<br />identify possible solutions<br />agree a outline improvement plan<br />identify the key performance indicators which will be used to track progress<br />Deliverables<br />Workshop Brief <br />Workshop notes in presentation-style containing:<br />Root cause analysis results<br />Selected solutions<br />Key performance indicators<br />Timeline and actions<br />Roadmap verification report<br />Approach<br />Preparation<br />Liaise with project/programme manager to agree objectives, agenda, attendees, date, venue and logistics for the workshop<br />Issue a Workshop Brief to the attendees<br />Facilitated Workshop for up to 10 people to analyse results and identify outline Improvement Roadmap<br />Follow-up<br />Coach the project/programme manager on converting workshop notes into an Improvement Roadmap<br />Verify that the Improvement Roadmap will deliver the desired goals/levels<br />26<br />
  27. 27. P3M3 Roadmap Workshop Process<br />27<br />
  28. 28. Available Training<br />© Outperform UK Ltd<br />www.outperform.co.uk<br />28<br />
  29. 29. Case Study<br />Core Cities<br />29<br />
  30. 30. Core Cities Benchmarking Initiative<br />Background<br />Sharing of best practices by 11 major regional city councils<br />Wanted to identify PPM strengths and weaknesses individually and in comparison to the group as a whole<br />4 councils participated in wave 1 (Birmingham, Bradford, Manchester, Sheffield)<br />Context<br />Comprehensive Performance Assessment (CPA) undertaken by the Audit Commission consistently identified project management as an improvement area for most local authorities<br />In 2009 the Audit Commission is replacing CPA with a Comprehensive Area Assessment (CAA)<br />Assesses all ‘parties’ in the local area<br />Greater focus on outcomes<br />Greater focus on alignment to ‘local priorities’<br />30<br />
  31. 31. Purpose<br />The purpose of the Core Cities P3M3 benchmark was to undertake a baseline assessment of our project, programme and portfolio management capability against P3M3, providing:<br />an assessment for each of the seven perspectives within each of the three models for key service areas within the council<br />Comparison against other public sector organisations generally, the private sector and specifically other Core Cities <br />Improvement suggestions including identification of quick fixes<br />Assessment of maturity level that could be attained on implementation of the improvement roadmap.<br />To provide a baseline for Comprehensive Area Assessment (CAA)<br />31<br />
  32. 32. Challenges<br />Organisation size<br />Organisation diversity<br />Different structures<br />Different role titles<br />Service partners<br />32<br />
  33. 33. Assessment Approach<br />Community survey of all participating councils (e)<br />On-line survey<br />Organisational data<br />Skills data<br />Aggregated opinions by common services areas (e.g. children services, housing, highways, ICT, Etc)<br />Community report<br />Facilitated self-assessment for each participating council (b)<br />Desk study of key documentation<br />theoretical maturity<br />Interviews<br />Gather examples<br />Follow-up survey queries<br />Workshop<br />Follow-up survey queries<br />Contextual understanding<br />Rating relative importance<br />Council specific report<br />33<br />
  34. 34. Individual Assessment Reports<br />Executive Summary<br />Evaluation Objective & Method<br />Observations<br />Recommendations<br />Capability Dashboards<br />Appendix A – Findings<br />Appendix B – Document List / Interview List / Questionnaire Respondents List<br />Appendix C - Definitions<br />Provides ‘likely’ maturity rating <br />Identifies strengths and weaknesses<br />Highlights areas for further investigation<br />Each council’s result was anonymous within the aggregated Core Cities report <br />34<br />
  35. 35. Example P3M3 dashboard<br />Key:<br />H/M/L designates confidence in the rating<br />Red = no evidence of key practices<br />Amber = some evidence key practices<br />Green = most key practices in place<br />White = out of scope<br />35<br />
  36. 36. Initial Findings<br />Mature ‘common’ project processes and templates in 2 councils, defined processes and templates in the others<br />There are islands of excellent programme management practice in all councils - but not commonly applied<br />However, programme Management is often project oriented<br />Annualised programmes rarely tranche oriented<br />Some programmes are actually portfolios (sub-programmes should be avoided)<br />Emerging use of tools – some excellent<br />Emerging application of portfolio management<br /><ul><li>Benefits being tracked, but not always aligned to strategic objectives</li></ul>36<br />
  37. 37. Initial Findings<br />In some councils there is a marked difference between capital and service improvement<br />Capital = good at projects and portfolio, weak at programmes<br />Service improvement = good at programme management<br />Cross-cutting programmes difficult in a silo environment<br />the SRO appointment dictates which directorate owns the programme<br />There are different approaches to stakeholder engagement<br />consultation<br />handling member influence / inclusion<br />However, what may work for one council may not work for another<br />There may be a correlation between P3Os (number of people and degree of centralisation) and the maturity results<br />37<br />
  38. 38. Average Maturity Level by rank<br />By Discipline<br />PjM3 = 2.05<br />PgM3 = 1.88<br />PfM3 = 0.64<br />By perspective<br />Management Control = 1.87<br />Risk Management = 1.75<br />Stakeholder Management = 1.67<br />Organisational Governance = 1.58<br />Benefits Management = 1.42<br />Finance Management = 1.29<br />Resource Management = 1.08<br />38<br />
  39. 39. Skills Analysis Summary<br />Part time / occasional project/programme managers<br />“day job” comes first<br />SME led appointments<br />skills transfer weak<br />PPM only just emerging as a profession<br />pay and scale reviews<br />competency profiles<br />competency development<br />Sponsor / SRO role unclear<br />39<br />
  40. 40. Project Management<br />40<br />
  41. 41. Measuring process adoption<br />41<br />
  42. 42. CASE STUDYImprovement roadmapfor anEngineering Company<br />
  43. 43. Context<br />This company employs some 800 project managers who manage around 2000 projects per year<br />Annual expenditure on projects is ~ £950m<br />The scope of projects is primarily capital<br />new infrastructure<br />asset renewal<br />Funding is provided by a government department that sets targets <br />They are regulated<br />
  44. 44. 2007 Result – Project Management<br />Highlights in 2007:<br /><ul><li>Project objectives unclear
  45. 45. Business case not kept updated
  46. 46. Interface issues
  47. 47. Commitment of support functions
  48. 48. Ad-hoc project induction
  49. 49. No gates process
  50. 50. Estimating weak
  51. 51. Baseline management weak
  52. 52. No formal stakeholder management process
  53. 53. Risk process is good but not consistently followed
  54. 54. Difficult to assess risk if scope is not identified properly
  55. 55. Programme managed strategically but project reporting is done on an individual basis and not as part of the programme</li></li></ul><li>Highlights:<br />- Project processes very good, but adoption is patchy<br /><ul><li>Programme processes mostly good, but not consistent across all programmes
  56. 56. Portfolio management is not recognised distinctly from programmes
  57. 57. Analysis has focused on P3M3 perspectives (e.g. Management control) rather than the P3M3 models (i.e. projects, programmes, portfolios)
  58. 58. In 2009 COMPANY launched PMF, which is consistent with OGC best practice and provides a theoretical level 3
  59. 59. Therefore the roadmap focus should be on embedment and assurance</li></ul>2009 P3M3 ratings<br /> 0.6 1.8 2.1<br />
  60. 60. P3M3 Ratings - projects<br />2011 Target<br />2010 Target<br />2009 result<br />2007 result<br />
  61. 61. Anaalysis of 2009 results - approach<br />For consistent and repeatable successful project delivery, organisations require a blend of behavioural, technical and contextual competencies across all levels.<br />This requires an integrated approach to assessing competence and formulating improvement plans for all levels.<br />47<br />
  62. 62. The landscape for success - definitions<br />
  63. 63. Improvement focus since 2007 assessment<br />PMF method(90% complete)<br />49<br />PMF people(30% complete)<br />PMF estimating<br />(10% complete)<br />
  64. 64. 50<br />Example Analysis of P3M3 Result Organisational Governance<br />
  65. 65. Example Analysis of P3M3 result<br />51<br />Missing P3M3 attributes at level 3 for Organisational Governance<br />
  66. 66. Example Analysis of P3M3 Result Organisational Governance<br />Possible actions to get to Level3<br />Cleanse MPD & other systems, close lingering projects (down to an estimated 400 live projects) and release residual budgets to Finance. Establish on-going mechanisms to facilitate timely closure of projects.<br />Have regular reviews of the project “portfolio” <br />ensure that the right projects are being executed/planned<br />Undertake trending analysis to prevent poor performance<br />Document the hierarchy of ‘delegated authority’ from Ministry, through COMPANY CEO, Programme Manager to PM – and propose efficiency improvements<br />Investigate and recommend improved governance structures shifting from a QC culture to a QA culture<br />Identify and disentangle current conflicting rules that drive behaviour contrary to COMPANY’s stated values<br />Continue to embed the current PMF products focussing on planning<br />Review sponsorship provision and recommend improvements as required<br />Assessment Feedback<br />COMPANY has a QC culture with lots of groups checking work at the end rather than assuring work as it is planned and executed, especially for investment/procurement authority decisions<br />Lack of appropriate authorities for the different management levels. Very opaque – too many layers.<br />Lack of trust across business areas. Unwillingness to confront difficult behaviours.<br />Conflicting goals and objectives lead to power struggles. Lack of consistent messages and clear decision making from the top to drive through business change.<br />Lack of full support for project agendas beyond the ‘core’ teams. Support functions behave like policemen and add further layers of governance<br />Not planning ahead enough – there is no > 6-month window.<br />There aren't any documented processes for Portfolio Management in COMPANY. <br />The COMPANY PMF briefly defines responsibilities of Programme Managers, but it is lacking w.r.t. roles and responsibilities across a "programme“ compared with “project”<br />52<br />
  67. 67. PMF Focus Areas 2010/11<br />PMF people<br />PMF governance<br />& assurance<br />53<br />
  68. 68. Benefit Map for proposed improvements<br />54<br />
  69. 69. Notes<br />Strength = Performance gains (PG)<br />Weaknesses = Price of non-conformance (PONC)<br />Implementation Actions = Cost of Quality (CoQ)<br />Ongoing PM overhead = Cost of Quality (CoQ)<br />Benefit = PG + PONC – CoQ<br />Effectiveness = quality of process x level of adoption<br />55<br />
  70. 70. Business Case<br />Cost of Quality (£1.8m)<br />£1.1m for improvement plans<br />£0.7m for increased operations<br />Quantified benefits from ‘efficiency’ alone (£5.4m)<br />25% reduction in the number of mandatory documents required by Project Managers on each product<br />£1.6m from 400 projects x 8 days x £500/day<br />Reduction in approval hurdles (from 14 to 10)<br />£3.2m from 400 projects x 4 hurdles x £2k<br />Lower operational costs for report consolidation<br />£600k from 3 permanent staff instead of 9<br />
  71. 71. Summary<br />Use of P3M3<br />P3M3 has been used to ‘prove’ current strengths and weaknesses<br />Improvement initiatives based on factual analysis rather than guesses<br />Senior Management Team were involved in setting priorities for the improvement initiatives based on the raw P3M3 result<br />P3M3 used as the main way of setting goals and tracking progress<br />Lessons<br />Only as COMPANY approached level 3 maturity has it been possible to calculate tangible savings and performance gains (as data was unreliable at lower levels)<br />Getting senior management to set the level of ambition was key to gaining buy-in for the improvement plans<br />© Outperform UK Ltd<br />57<br />
  72. 72. About Outperform<br />58<br />
  73. 73. About Outperform<br /><ul><li>A specialist consultancy
  74. 74. Helping organisations improve their bid, project and programme management performance through the practical application of best practice methods
  75. 75. Accreditations
  76. 76. ISO9001 Certified
  77. 77. Accredited Consulting Organisation
  78. 78. Professional membership
  79. 79. APM corporate member
  80. 80. Best Practice User Group™ member</li></ul>59<br />
  81. 81. Some of our consultants<br />Project Angels<br />Aspire Europe<br />Cansoti<br />60<br />
  82. 82. Where we help – expertise and services<br />Publications<br />Outperform’s consultants have written a number of books/white-papers and developed handbooks/templates which are available to purchase or download from our website.<br />Assessments<br />Bid, Project and Programme audits or health-checks. Organisational maturity assessments. Portfolio review (inc culling service).<br />Training Workshops<br />One and two day workshops and business games delivered by registered consultants showing how to embed best practice. Available as public and on-site.<br />Facilitation <br />Structured workshops to help you define, assess risks in, or plan your bid, project or programme.<br />Coaching<br />Our buddy services start from half day a month and can be called off in hourly units.<br />Embedding<br />Use a maturity model to assess current capability, define an improvement roadmap, develop handbooks/ processes/ templates and supervise the roadmap implementation.<br />61<br />
  83. 83. Where we help – organisational competence<br />Fully covered<br />Partially covered<br />Not covered<br />62<br />
  84. 84. Where we offer value<br />63<br />
  85. 85. Example P3M3 Assessments<br />
  86. 86. Contacts<br />UK<br />t +44 8451 304861<br />f +44 871 750 3386<br />e info@outperform.co.uk<br />w www.outperform.co.uk<br />UAE<br />t +971 50 321 7420<br />e info@outperform.ae<br />w www.outperform.ae<br />M_o_R® is a Registered Trade Mark of the Office of Government Commerce in the United Kingdom and other countries <br />PRINCE2® is a Registered Trade Mark of the Office of Government Commerce in the United Kingdom and other countries<br />MSP™ is a Trade Mark of the Office of Government Commerce <br />The Swirl logo™ is a Trade Mark of the Office of Government Commerce<br />P3M3™ a Trade Mark of the Office of Government Commerce <br />BPUG® is a Registered Trade Mark of Best Practice User Group Ltd<br />Best Practice User Group™ and the Best Practice User Group™ logo are Trade Marks of Best Practice User Group Ltd<br />Outperform™ is a Trade Mark of Outperform UK Ltd<br />65<br />

×