Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Krishnakumar kaniappan project delivery excellence


Published on

Published in: Business, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Krishnakumar kaniappan project delivery excellence

  1. 1. PROJECT DELIVERY EXCELLENCE – A Case study<br />Krishnakumar Kanniappan PMP<br />21 November 2010<br />
  2. 2. Presentation Title<br />Agenda<br />FMC Program - Background<br />FMC – An overview<br />System Integration Projects Process <br />Key Challenges faced & Best Practices / Solution<br />Conclusion<br />References<br />Author Contact Details<br />
  3. 3. FMC Program - Background<br />Client <br />A major UK Telecom operator specializing in offering high quality communications services such as IP, data, voice and hosting to large enterprise, reseller and carrier customers<br />Objective <br />To Launch GSM based Fixed Mobile Convergence (FMC) services to Enterprise customers in UK within a very aggressive target timeline of 12 weeks.<br />Role of System Integrator <br />End-To-End delivery of the Program<br />Presentation Title<br />
  4. 4. FMC Program - Background<br />Scope<br /><ul><li>Building the business workflows for the various FMC-related rollouts and activities.
  5. 5. Provision of a self-care portal for customers to order FMC end-user Mobile service.
  6. 6. Automation of the entire order flow using SOA based integration and web services on mainframes.
  7. 7. Development of a Business to Business gateway to enable partners to receive/assign tickets.
  8. 8. Development of a traffic monitoring solution to track traffic across mobile network elements.
  9. 9. Automation of billing for Voice, SMS, GPRS and Blackberry services.
  10. 10. Development of various Provide, Assure and Billing Reports.
  11. 11. Easy management of Mobile Core Network, FMC Access Network, Mobile Number and SIM Inventory.
  12. 12. Compliance with various regulatory functions like Port In, Port Out, etc.</li></ul>Presentation Title<br />
  13. 13. FMC – An Overview<br />What is FMC?<br />FMC stands for Fixed and Mobile Telephony Convergence.<br />The aim is to provide both fixed and mobile services with a single phone, which is able to switch between networks <br />What are the benefits of FMC to Enterprise customers?<br />Reduce total cost of ownership (TCO) for telephony<br />Reduce the cost of calls from both mobiles and fixed lines<br />Inherent resilience and improved coverage to protect business critical voice<br />Operational simplicity<br />Increase employee productivity<br />Simple service migration<br /><ul><li>How FMC works?</li></ul>Presentation Title<br />
  14. 14. System Integration Project processes - as mapped to PMI Process Groups<br />Presentation Title<br />
  15. 15. Challenge 1: Aggressive Time-to-Market Target<br />Description<br /><ul><li>Aggressive timeline of 12 weeks
  16. 16. Largely included Building Business Workflows, Provision of Self-Care Portal, Development of B2B gateway, Automation of Billing, Building of Reports and Compliance with regulatory functions</li></ul>Wave based Tactical to Strategic solution implementation<br />Solution Approach<br /><ul><li>Detailed view of the client supplied product
  17. 17. Defined high-level business processes
  18. 18. Developed end-state IT architectcture and solution
  19. 19. Delivery broken into waves to manage development
  20. 20. For each wave used the MoSCoW prioritization to classify requirements into:
  21. 21. Must Haves: Essential, can’t do without
  22. 22. Should Haves: Important but a workaround may suffice
  23. 23. Could Haves: Ones that can be let go
  24. 24. Won’t Haves: Not now but later</li></ul>Presentation Title<br />
  25. 25. Challenge 2: Capped Fixed Price Cost<br />Description<br /><ul><li>FMC contract to SI was under an agreement of a Capped Fixed price.
  26. 26. Included any delivery costs involving 3rd parties.
  27. 27. Risk of any slippage in the Program, be it SI-inflicted or any 3rd party-inflicted, was with SI. </li></ul>Solution Approach<br /><ul><li>Finance dashboard:
  28. 28. Created by the Delivery owner and was continuously updated and tracked with Program team
  29. 29. Capped amount apportioned between different waves (phases)
  30. 30. Helped in proactive Program resource planning within SI’s organization
  31. 31. Helped in negotiation with 3rd party vendors on costs of their deliveries
  32. 32. Capability matrix driven Time-boxed waves:
  33. 33. An overall E2E Program plan with detailed breakdown of activities, dependencies etc for each wave was developed
  34. 34. Clarifies what functionalities are delivered as part of each wave
  35. 35. The time-boxed schedule of the entire wave with details on the scope were published
  36. 36. Helped owners of each dependency to plan in advance and deliver on time
  37. 37. Statement of Work:
  38. 38. Clear agreement of Scope, Schedule & Cost was agreed between client, SI and 3rd parties
  39. 39. For SOWs involving 3rd parties, all negotiations done by SI and recommendations were accepted by client
  40. 40. Delays in the client dependencies which were out of SI’s control were escalated and were put into formal Change Control process </li></ul>Presentation Title<br />
  41. 41. Challenge 3: Dynamic Requirements<br />Description<br /><ul><li>Client’s expectation was to improve upon user experience requirements as the solution & development progressed
  42. 42. Requirements evolving while SI was under pressure to deliver within time-boxed waves & capped cost </li></ul>Conceptual view of Agile-based Delivery model<br />Solution Approach<br />Agile-based delivery<br /><ul><li>Iterations of short time frames that typically last from one to four weeks
  43. 43. Helps minimize overall risk, and lets the project adapt to changes quickly
  44. 44. Multiple iterations may be required to release a product or new features
  45. 45. Agile methods emphasize face-to-face communication when possible
  46. 46. Feedback from each drop fed into the next drop provided it is not a new requirement and also it did not need more than few man days effort</li></ul>Presentation Title<br />
  47. 47. Challenge 4: Vendor Dependency<br />Description<br /><ul><li>FMC Program’s scope included delivery from numerous 3rd party vendors
  48. 48. Warranted more caution in terms of managing vendor deliveries and in turn the entire delivery </li></ul>Governance Model : Multi-vendor delivery model<br />Solution Approach<br />Governance model<br /><ul><li>Robust Governance model involving SI, Client & 3rd party vendors
  49. 49. Clear Escalation protocol agreement
  50. 50. Frequent vendor delivery tracking meetings & regular Vendor delivery status reports
  51. 51. Collocated team in client premises or in vendors’ offices based on need</li></li></ul><li>Challenge 5: Conflicting Business & IT priorities<br />Description<br /><ul><li> While the Business priority was to launch fully automated FMC service as soon as possible, IT’s priority was to launch the solution in strategic stack
  52. 52. The strategic stack in subject here was evolved after the contract for FMC was signed with SI and hence this meant change in agreed scope and need for more time to launch the service to market </li></ul>Solution Approach<br /><ul><li> IT’s request for developing FMC solution in strategic stack was taken to CCB for deliberation & was eventually raised as a Change Request
  53. 53. Impacts to the cost and schedule were discussed and a delivery decision was taken with IT and business teams</li></li></ul><li>Challenge 6: Adhoc Changes<br />Description<br /><ul><li>With Agile methodology, program team faced continuous risks in changes creeping into the Program at different levels.
  54. 54. Default expectation from those who raise these requests was for the Program team to accept those as requirement evolution as part of Agile & implement those as part of the scope
  55. 55. Posed a huge risk to committed Program schedule and Program capped FP cost</li></ul>Solution Approach<br />Change Control Board<br /><ul><li>The CCB process was discussed and agreed at all levels right from CIO to the developer / tester level in the Executive / Program teams.
  56. 56. Weekly CCB meetings established to discuss all new requirements and agreed/suspected change in requirements, etc
  57. 57. Change Requests Report updated every week and cascaded to all project stakeholders for clarity</li></li></ul><li>Challenge 7: Managing delays from Client-side <br />Description<br /><ul><li>There were many instances when client was not able to fulfill the dependencies within the requested target dates
  58. 58. Posed a severe risk to both the very aggressive schedule and also to the capped fixed price cost.</li></ul>Solution Approach<br />Negotiations through Change Control Board<br /><ul><li>Appropriate escalations were done in case of client delays and cases were referred to the Change Control Board
  59. 59. Diagram: The initial agreement was to deliver solution in Wave3, due client delays, the whole solution delivery was re-baselined to be delivered in three Waves viz Wave3, 4 & 5. After several deliberations, client approved for additional budget to cover the extra time taken</li></ul>RAID register<br /><ul><li>All dependencies and assumptions were consolidated in the RAID register and the key ones were highlighted in various reports sent to the client.
  60. 60. If the client dependency was not met even after the RAID reminders, we referred the case to Change Control Board </li></li></ul><li>Challenge 8: Stakeholders’ Management <br />Description<br /><ul><li>Accountability of stakeholders management lied with SI Included any delivery costs involving 3rd parties.
  61. 61. Need for meticulous monitoring and tracking and governance mechanisms in place and to ensure appropriate stakeholders are kept informed of progress promptly</li></ul>Solution Approach<br /><ul><li>Program Reviews - Monitoring & Tracking:
  62. 62. Daily Scrum calls (Chair: SI Program Manager)
  63. 63. Monthly/Fortnightly Program status update meeting (Chair: SI Program Manager)
  64. 64. Fortnightly Executive level 121 meeting (Chair: SI Organization’s Head of Telecom Unit)
  65. 65. Focus Program Management Reviews (Chair: SI Delivery Owner)
  66. 66. Architecture Review Boards (Chair: Client Head of Solution Design)
  67. 67. Weekly Change Control Board meeting (Chair: SI Change Control Manager/SI Program Manager)
  68. 68. Program Status Reporting:
  69. 69. Daily Status Emails (SI Program Manager)
  70. 70. Weekly Status report presentations (SI Program Manager)
  71. 71. Vendor Status reports (Responsibility: SI Program Manager)</li></li></ul><li>Conclusion<br /><ul><li>Program delivered the desired business results
  72. 72. Client has launched FMC service to one of the largest grocery retailer in UK, who is already its IP VPN customer, as part of a £100 million contract
  73. 73. Client has also signed FMC deals with few other Enterprises and has aggressive growth plans. </li></ul>Voice of customer:<br />“A huge thank you to TCS for their continued perseverance, support, creative approach, and ongoing flexibility in helping me drive FMC to completion” – Client Programme Manager<br />An Apt case study representing theme of PMI 2010 Conference:<br />Leveraging Project Management for Excellence, Growth and Transformation<br />Case study of this successful program is available in:<br /><br />
  74. 74. References<br /><ul><li>Ash Steve, MoSCoWPrioritisation Briefing Paper, Dynamic Systems Development Method Consortium, October 2007
  75. 75. Tata Consultancy Services, System Integration Projects – Process Handbook
  76. 76. Wikipedia -</li></li></ul><li>Author’s contact<br /><ul><li>Address: Tata Consultancy Services Ltd, 33 Grosvenor Place, London, SW1X 7HS
  77. 77. Email:
  78. 78. Phone: +44 7702910300 Fax: +44 2072451875</li>