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)

1. Portfolio, Programme and Project Management Maturity Model (P3M3™) Assessment support services from Outperform The Swirl logo™ is a Trade Mark of the Office of Government Commerce P3M3™ a Trade Mark of the Office of Government Commerce 1 © Outperform UK Ltd www.outperform.co.uk

2. Contents P3M3 Overview Services from Outperform P3M3 On-line Survey P3M3 Discovery Assessment P3M3 Diagnostic Assessment P3M3 Certification Assessment P3M3 Community Survey P3M3 Roadmap Workshop P3M3 Training Case study About Outperform 2

3. P3M3 Overview What is P3M3? A maturity model developed and owned by the OGC (a UK Government Department) Covers project, programme and portfolio management Describes key attributes that organisations are expected to exhibit at five increasing levels of maturity Breaks down the complexity of project, programme and portfolio management to enable improvement plans to be formulated It has six primary uses Discovering capabilities to determine which areas to concentrate on (may lead to a diagnostic assessment) Diagnosing systemic weaknesses to eliminate root causes Baselining current capability (for later comparison) Benchmarking capability against other organisations (possibly to harvest best practice from a community) Certifying capability through independent assessment Prioritising improvement initiatives (based on any of the above) 3

4. P3M3 v2 Model Structure Indicate Capability Define Goals/Purpose Help Deployment Describe Evidence 4

5. P3M3 perspectives 5

6. 6 P3M3 Maturity Levels

7. 7 2% 4% 9% 85% P3M3 Maturity Levels (Process Improvement) Deliberate optimisation/improvement (Quantified) Process management and measurement takes place (Embedded)The process is defined/confirmed as a standard business process - Documenting desired practices / Designing processes. (Process discipline) The process is used repeatedly - Documenting current practices (Chaotic, Ad Hoc, Heroic) The starting point for use of a new process

8. Performance improvements can be measured! Process capability as indicated by maturity levels

9. Performance improvements can be measured! Process capability as indicated by maturity levels Most expensive place to be

10. P3M3 Services from Outperform 10 © Outperform UK Ltd www.outperform.co.uk

11. Typical engagement journey Measurable targets Step 4How will you get there? Step 1What is the context? Progress metrics Corporate Vision & Objectives Improvementplan Step 5How well did you do? P3M3 scope P3M3 ratings Step 3Where do you want to be? Step 2Where are you today? 11

12. Outperform’s P3M3 Services

13. P3M3 On-line Survey Purpose To baseline an organisation’s likely maturity against OGC’s P3M3 (optionally) to provide useful 360 degree input to consultant led assessments Deliverables Survey Plan P3M3 Capability Assessment Report Maturity dashboards Benchmarking against Outperform’s results database Skills profile Respondents’ comments Approach Clients set up the survey by providing: Name, organisation and email address of the applicant Which models they are assessing (i.e. PjM3, PgM3, PfM3) The expected maturity level Survey start date, survey close date Respondents’ mail addresses Survey Execution Respondents are quizzed about maturity at 3 levels only (one below/above the expected level) Takes 10-15 minutes to complete Non-respondents are sent reminders When the survey closes the applicant is emailed an auto-generated report 13

14. P3M3 On-line Survey Process 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. 14

15. P3M3 Discovery-lite Assessment Purpose To assist an organisation in assessing their maturity against OGC’s P3M3 A discovery of capability in order to prioritise improvement plans To baseline current capability in order to track progress Deliverables Pre-assessment briefing P3M3 Capability Assessment Report Maturity Dashboard Benchmarking against Outperform’s results database Recommendations Approach Desk study of key documentation Limited number of documents Understand theoretical maturity Interviews (1 day on-site) Up to 4 people Gather examples Focus Group workshop (1 day on-site) Contextual understanding Rating relative importance Produce report Presentation of results (optional) 15

16. P3M3 Discovery-lite Assessment Process 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) 16

17. P3M3 Discovery Assessment Purpose To assist an organisation in assessing their maturity against OGC’s P3M3 A discovery of capability in order to prioritise improvement plans To baseline current capability in order to track progress Deliverables Pre-assessment briefing P3M3 Capability Assessment Report Maturity Dashboard Benchmarking against Outperform’s results database Recommendations Approach On-line survey Unlimited respondents Organisational data Process usage Skills profiles 360 degree opinions Desk study of key documentation Project/programme documents Understand theoretical maturity Interviews (2 days on-site) Up to 8 people Gather examples Follow-up survey queries Focus Group (1 day on-site) Follow-up survey queries Contextual understanding Rating relative importance Produce report Presentation of results (optional) 17

18. P3M3 Discovery Assessment Process 18

19. P3M3 Diagnostic Assessment Purpose To use P3M3 to identify the root causes of an identified issue To quantify potential cost savings and performance gains from planned improvement initiatives Deliverables Survey Report Capability Assessment Report containing P3M3 results, observations relating to the assessment objective and key recommendations Improvement Roadmap (optional) Project Briefs for selected improvement initiatives (optional) presentation of results Approach As per P3M3 Discovery Assessment but with A more detailed desk study of the organisation’s PPM collateral Additional interviews Roadmap Workshop investigating root causes and formulating solutions 19

20. P3M3 Diagnostic Assessment Process 20

21. P3M3 Certification Assessment Purpose To assess an organisation against P3M3 in order to award a certificate for the level achieved Deliverables Assessment Plan Application to APMG for P3M3 certification P3M3 evidence submission to APMG P3M3 dashboard P3M3 certificate(s) if successful Approach Check readiness for certification Scope assessment Desk study of key documentation (against minimum set required by APM Group) Interview of selected personnel (against the minimum number required by APM Group) Aggregation of evidence to compile submission to APMG Liaison with APM Group regarding submission of application form, APMG spot-check, submission of maturity rating, APMG verification of rating, award of certification 21

22. Certification Assessment - Interviews by role 22

23. P3M3 Certification Assessment Process 23

24. P3M3 Community Survey Purpose To benchmark the individual and collective capability of a group of organisations against OGC’s P3M3 To provide a baseline for each participating organisation in the benchmark To foster the sharing of best practice Deliverables P3M3 Capability Assessment Report (each participating organisation) Maturity Dashboard Benchmarking against Outperform’s results database and against the community results Skills profile Respondents’ comments P3M3 community report (whole community) Approach Survey Set Up agree the number of participating organisations, contact details and survey set-up data Each organisation provides the respondents email addresses Survey Execution All organisations complete the same survey Respondents are quizzed about maturity at 3 levels only (Levels 1 to 3) Takes 10-15 minutes to complete Non-respondents are sent auto-reminders When the survey closes each organisation is emailed an auto-generated report for their own organisation The consultant analyses the aggregated results, produces the community report and emails it to the community representative 24

25. P3M3 Community Survey Process 25

26. P3M3 Roadmap Workshop Purpose decide which items from the assessment should be addressed understand the root causes of any problems identified identify possible solutions agree a outline improvement plan identify the key performance indicators which will be used to track progress Deliverables Workshop Brief Workshop notes in presentation-style containing: Root cause analysis results Selected solutions Key performance indicators Timeline and actions Roadmap verification report Approach Preparation Liaise with project/programme manager to agree objectives, agenda, attendees, date, venue and logistics for the workshop Issue a Workshop Brief to the attendees Facilitated Workshop for up to 10 people to analyse results and identify outline Improvement Roadmap Follow-up Coach the project/programme manager on converting workshop notes into an Improvement Roadmap Verify that the Improvement Roadmap will deliver the desired goals/levels 26

27. P3M3 Roadmap Workshop Process 27

28. Available Training © Outperform UK Ltd www.outperform.co.uk 28

29. Case Study Core Cities 29

30. Core Cities Benchmarking Initiative Background Sharing of best practices by 11 major regional city councils Wanted to identify PPM strengths and weaknesses individually and in comparison to the group as a whole 4 councils participated in wave 1 (Birmingham, Bradford, Manchester, Sheffield) Context Comprehensive Performance Assessment (CPA) undertaken by the Audit Commission consistently identified project management as an improvement area for most local authorities In 2009 the Audit Commission is replacing CPA with a Comprehensive Area Assessment (CAA) Assesses all ‘parties’ in the local area Greater focus on outcomes Greater focus on alignment to ‘local priorities’ 30

31. Purpose 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: an assessment for each of the seven perspectives within each of the three models for key service areas within the council Comparison against other public sector organisations generally, the private sector and specifically other Core Cities Improvement suggestions including identification of quick fixes Assessment of maturity level that could be attained on implementation of the improvement roadmap. To provide a baseline for Comprehensive Area Assessment (CAA) 31

32. Challenges Organisation size Organisation diversity Different structures Different role titles Service partners 32

33. Assessment Approach Community survey of all participating councils (e) On-line survey Organisational data Skills data Aggregated opinions by common services areas (e.g. children services, housing, highways, ICT, Etc) Community report Facilitated self-assessment for each participating council (b) Desk study of key documentation theoretical maturity Interviews Gather examples Follow-up survey queries Workshop Follow-up survey queries Contextual understanding Rating relative importance Council specific report 33

34. Individual Assessment Reports Executive Summary Evaluation Objective & Method Observations Recommendations Capability Dashboards Appendix A – Findings Appendix B – Document List / Interview List / Questionnaire Respondents List Appendix C - Definitions Provides ‘likely’ maturity rating Identifies strengths and weaknesses Highlights areas for further investigation Each council’s result was anonymous within the aggregated Core Cities report 34

35. Example P3M3 dashboard Key: H/M/L designates confidence in the rating Red = no evidence of key practices Amber = some evidence key practices Green = most key practices in place White = out of scope 35

37. Initial Findings In some councils there is a marked difference between capital and service improvement Capital = good at projects and portfolio, weak at programmes Service improvement = good at programme management Cross-cutting programmes difficult in a silo environment the SRO appointment dictates which directorate owns the programme There are different approaches to stakeholder engagement consultation handling member influence / inclusion However, what may work for one council may not work for another There may be a correlation between P3Os (number of people and degree of centralisation) and the maturity results 37

38. Average Maturity Level by rank By Discipline PjM3 = 2.05 PgM3 = 1.88 PfM3 = 0.64 By perspective Management Control = 1.87 Risk Management = 1.75 Stakeholder Management = 1.67 Organisational Governance = 1.58 Benefits Management = 1.42 Finance Management = 1.29 Resource Management = 1.08 38

39. Skills Analysis Summary Part time / occasional project/programme managers “day job” comes first SME led appointments skills transfer weak PPM only just emerging as a profession pay and scale reviews competency profiles competency development Sponsor / SRO role unclear 39

40. Project Management 40

41. Measuring process adoption 41

42. CASE STUDYImprovement roadmapfor anEngineering Company

43. Context This company employs some 800 project managers who manage around 2000 projects per year Annual expenditure on projects is ~ £950m The scope of projects is primarily capital new infrastructure asset renewal Funding is provided by a government department that sets targets They are regulated

45. Business case not kept updated

46. Interface issues

47. Commitment of support functions

48. Ad-hoc project induction

49. No gates process

50. Estimating weak

51. Baseline management weak

52. No formal stakeholder management process

53. Risk process is good but not consistently followed

54. Difficult to assess risk if scope is not identified properly

56. Portfolio management is not recognised distinctly from programmes

57. Analysis has focused on P3M3 perspectives (e.g. Management control) rather than the P3M3 models (i.e. projects, programmes, portfolios)

58. In 2009 COMPANY launched PMF, which is consistent with OGC best practice and provides a theoretical level 3

59. Therefore the roadmap focus should be on embedment and assurance2009 P3M3 ratings 0.6 1.8 2.1

60. P3M3 Ratings - projects 2011 Target 2010 Target 2009 result 2007 result

61. Anaalysis of 2009 results - approach For consistent and repeatable successful project delivery, organisations require a blend of behavioural, technical and contextual competencies across all levels. This requires an integrated approach to assessing competence and formulating improvement plans for all levels. 47

62. The landscape for success - definitions

63. Improvement focus since 2007 assessment PMF method(90% complete) 49 PMF people(30% complete) PMF estimating (10% complete)

64. 50 Example Analysis of P3M3 Result Organisational Governance

65. Example Analysis of P3M3 result 51 Missing P3M3 attributes at level 3 for Organisational Governance

66. Example Analysis of P3M3 Result Organisational Governance Possible actions to get to Level3 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. Have regular reviews of the project “portfolio” ensure that the right projects are being executed/planned Undertake trending analysis to prevent poor performance Document the hierarchy of ‘delegated authority’ from Ministry, through COMPANY CEO, Programme Manager to PM – and propose efficiency improvements Investigate and recommend improved governance structures shifting from a QC culture to a QA culture Identify and disentangle current conflicting rules that drive behaviour contrary to COMPANY’s stated values Continue to embed the current PMF products focussing on planning Review sponsorship provision and recommend improvements as required Assessment Feedback 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 Lack of appropriate authorities for the different management levels. Very opaque – too many layers. Lack of trust across business areas. Unwillingness to confront difficult behaviours. Conflicting goals and objectives lead to power struggles. Lack of consistent messages and clear decision making from the top to drive through business change. Lack of full support for project agendas beyond the ‘core’ teams. Support functions behave like policemen and add further layers of governance Not planning ahead enough – there is no > 6-month window. There aren't any documented processes for Portfolio Management in COMPANY. 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” 52

67. PMF Focus Areas 2010/11 PMF people PMF governance & assurance 53

68. Benefit Map for proposed improvements 54

69. Notes Strength = Performance gains (PG) Weaknesses = Price of non-conformance (PONC) Implementation Actions = Cost of Quality (CoQ) Ongoing PM overhead = Cost of Quality (CoQ) Benefit = PG + PONC – CoQ Effectiveness = quality of process x level of adoption 55

70. Business Case Cost of Quality (£1.8m) £1.1m for improvement plans £0.7m for increased operations Quantified benefits from ‘efficiency’ alone (£5.4m) 25% reduction in the number of mandatory documents required by Project Managers on each product £1.6m from 400 projects x 8 days x £500/day Reduction in approval hurdles (from 14 to 10) £3.2m from 400 projects x 4 hurdles x £2k Lower operational costs for report consolidation £600k from 3 permanent staff instead of 9

71. Summary Use of P3M3 P3M3 has been used to ‘prove’ current strengths and weaknesses Improvement initiatives based on factual analysis rather than guesses Senior Management Team were involved in setting priorities for the improvement initiatives based on the raw P3M3 result P3M3 used as the main way of setting goals and tracking progress Lessons 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) Getting senior management to set the level of ambition was key to gaining buy-in for the improvement plans © Outperform UK Ltd 57

72. About Outperform 58

74. Helping organisations improve their bid, project and programme management performance through the practical application of best practice methods

75. Accreditations

76. ISO9001 Certified

77. Accredited Consulting Organisation

78. Professional membership

79. APM corporate member

80. Best Practice User Group™ member59

81. Some of our consultants Project Angels Aspire Europe Cansoti 60

82. Where we help – expertise and services Publications 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. Assessments Bid, Project and Programme audits or health-checks. Organisational maturity assessments. Portfolio review (inc culling service). Training Workshops One and two day workshops and business games delivered by registered consultants showing how to embed best practice. Available as public and on-site. Facilitation Structured workshops to help you define, assess risks in, or plan your bid, project or programme. Coaching Our buddy services start from half day a month and can be called off in hourly units. Embedding Use a maturity model to assess current capability, define an improvement roadmap, develop handbooks/ processes/ templates and supervise the roadmap implementation. 61

83. Where we help – organisational competence Fully covered Partially covered Not covered 62

84. Where we offer value 63

85. Example P3M3 Assessments

86. Contacts UK t +44 8451 304861 f +44 871 750 3386 e info@outperform.co.uk w www.outperform.co.uk UAE t +971 50 321 7420 e info@outperform.ae w www.outperform.ae M_o_R® is a Registered Trade Mark of the Office of Government Commerce in the United Kingdom and other countries PRINCE2® is a Registered Trade Mark of the Office of Government Commerce in the United Kingdom and other countries MSP™ is a Trade Mark of the Office of Government Commerce The Swirl logo™ is a Trade Mark of the Office of Government Commerce P3M3™ a Trade Mark of the Office of Government Commerce BPUG® is a Registered Trade Mark of Best Practice User Group Ltd Best Practice User Group™ and the Best Practice User Group™ logo are Trade Marks of Best Practice User Group Ltd Outperform™ is a Trade Mark of Outperform UK Ltd 65