Delivery & Commercial Capability Programme - Understanding complexity - Andy Murray

846 views

Published on

Published in: Education, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
846
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
202
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
20
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Delivery & Commercial Capability Programme - Understanding complexity - Andy Murray

  1. 1. Delivery & Commercial Capability Programme Understanding Complexity 1
  2. 2. The Killer Question... • Are "complex projects" real or are they simply a result of poorly defined scope. How can one distinguish between a genuinely complex project and one that has not had its scope and context sufficiently developed? 2
  3. 3. Complexity & Capability Projects this side of the cliff need a greater maturity than current organisation al capability Complexity v Performance for Company X Project portfolio Projects this side of the cliff are within the host organisation’s inherent capability Helmsman performance cliff model A project’s performance/complexity rating Increasing maturity level raises the complexity cliff Note: Diagram is illustrative. Not TfL data. Complexity Cliff
  4. 4. Why Assess Complexity? Helmsman Increase Capability Maturity requirement of host organisation Choice of Team Appointments Choice of Delivery Model Authority approval level DECA / Helmsman Assurance strategy Complexity rating Degree of rigour to apply Enables capability gaps to be identified Monitoring/Reporting Lifecycle/Gates These are factored into Pathway and will continue to be used to refine default levels of control Process / Techniques Helmsman Strategies to treat complexity drivers De-scoping Feasibility studies Agile Optioneering Proof of Concept Project Teams can use the results to target the factors driving up their complexity
  5. 5. Helmsman Model (comprehensive) The Helmsman model measures both hard and soft factors
  6. 6. Results for Project ‘X’
  7. 7. Comparing similar projects 8.0 7.0 6.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 C ontex t S oc ial A mbig uity Tec hnic al P rojec t Manag ement C omplex ity R ating B aker S treet S tation Improvement 5.3 5.0 5.0 3.1 5.4 4.8 B ond S treet S tation Upg rade 6.7 5.0 6.6 6.2 7.0 6.3 C hanc ery L ane S tation Improvement 4.7 5.3 5.0 3.1 5.3 4.7 G reen P ark S F A 5.3 4.5 4.7 3.6 6.1 4.8 Marble A rc h 5.3 6.0 5.1 4.2 6.3 5.4 Notting Hill G ate 5.3 4.0 4.6 3.9 5.4 4.6 Tottenham C ourt R oad S tation Improvements 7.0 5.6 4.9 7.3 7.6 6.5 V ic toria S tation Upg rade P rojec t 7.3 5.5 5.3 5.5 7.0 6.1
  8. 8. Top 5 Sub-Factors 10.0 The D&CC governance workstream has been helping with this issue, but there’s still more to do: e.g. Only submitting investment papers to the final decision-maker 9.0 8.0 conflict 7.0 6.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 Multi-dis c iplinary A verag e R ating Timeframes S truc ture L evel of A c c ountability S takeholder Numbers 8.1 7.4 7.2 7.1 6.9 • TfL typically has a large number of core disciplines involved in projects. • Timeframes are typically quite long, meaning it is likely that scope will be ambiguous and/or subject to change and continuity of stakeholders and project personnel is unlikely. • Project Managers typically are accountable for delivering new capabilities (not just tangible outputs), However, there are typically 4-5 decision-making layers above the Project Manager • There are generally a lot of stakeholders interested in TfL projects 8
  9. 9. Complexity & Cost 10 Generally, the bigger the project by cost, the more complex it is. 9 But lower value projects have a wider spread of complexity. The ranges shown here cover a 90% confidence interval.. 8 It could be more critical to understand complexity drivers for projects <£100m than in other cost bands. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 £1-25m £25£50m £50m£100m £100m£300m £300m£1bn £1bn+
  10. 10. Variability Most variable Least variable To be addressed by projects teams To be addressed corporately 8.00 7.00 6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 TfL P ortfolio A verag e S TD E V • The least variable complexity drivers should be addressed corporately – e.g. factored into TfL pathway, tools/systems, competency development etc • The most variable complexity drivers should be addressed locally, and factored into team selection, assurance etc.
  11. 11. What we are doing next... Context ource: Ackoff / Senge & Roth Approach
  12. 12. The Killer Question... • Are "complex projects" real or are they simply a result of poorly defined scope. How can one distinguish between a genuinely complex project and one that has not had its scope and context sufficiently developed? • My experience... – Even for well defined projects – Some complexity drivers are inherent – Some can be tamed – Others cannot – Some complexity drivers are self-inflicted – For poorly defined projects – Most complexity drivers are self-inflicted 12

×