Project Management Working Group November 6 - 7, 2003 Recap
Training <ul><li>Responsible Party: Robin Madison </li></ul><ul><li>Feedback Point of Contacts:  </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Asa...
Training <ul><li>Issues: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Group A:  </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Lack of standards to ensure consis...
Training <ul><li>Recommendations:  </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Group A: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Establish core competenci...
Tailoring <ul><li>Responsible Party: Robert Wilkinson / Robert Benedetti </li></ul><ul><li>Feedback Point of Contacts:  </...
Tailoring <ul><li>Issues: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Group A: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Indecision resulting in correspond...
Tailoring <ul><li>Recommendations: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Group A: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Tailoring Plan at CD-0 </...
Tailoring <ul><li>Recommendations: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Group B:  </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>There is no incentive, o...
Performance Measurement <ul><li>Responsible Party: Asa Kelley </li></ul><ul><li>Feedback Point of Contacts:  </li></ul><ul...
Performance Measurement <ul><li>Issues: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Group A: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Identification of ea...
Performance Measurement <ul><li>Recommendations:  </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Group A: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Establish ...
Performance Measurement <ul><li>Recommendations:  </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Group B: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Select PC ...
Risk & Contingency Allocation <ul><li>Responsible Party: Thomas Johnson </li></ul><ul><li>Feedback Point of Contacts:  </l...
Risk & Contingency Allocation <ul><li>Issues: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Group A: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Lack of consis...
Risk & Contingency Allocation <ul><li>Recommendations: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Group A: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Devel...
Risk & Contingency Allocation <ul><li>Recommendations: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Group B:  </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Enco...
Impact of Change over Time <ul><li>Responsible Party: Sam Formby </li></ul><ul><li>Feedback Point of Contacts:  </li></ul>...
Impact of Change over Time <ul><li>Issues: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Group A: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Change control pr...
Impact of Change over Time <ul><li>Recommendations: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Group A: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Enforce ...
Impact of Change over Time <ul><li>Recommendations: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Group B:  </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Develop...
Baseline Development <ul><li>Responsible Party: Lynne Schluter / Joel Eacker </li></ul><ul><li>Feedback Point of Contacts:...
Baseline Development <ul><li>Responsible Party: Lynne Schluter / Joel Eacker </li></ul><ul><li>Feedback Point of Contacts:...
Baseline Development <ul><li>Issues: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Group A: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Premature project defin...
Baseline Development <ul><li>Recommendations: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Group A: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Prepare a proj...
Baseline Development <ul><li>Recommendations: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Group B:  </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Identify corp...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Pmwg.110603

282 views

Published on

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

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
282
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Pmwg.110603

  1. 1. Project Management Working Group November 6 - 7, 2003 Recap
  2. 2. Training <ul><li>Responsible Party: Robin Madison </li></ul><ul><li>Feedback Point of Contacts: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Asa Kelley (Group A) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Rich Tosetti (Group B) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Proposed Objectives: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Group A: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Ensure the Project Management Team is trained and qualified to perform their functions. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Group B: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Delete second objective as stated in the PMWG brief. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Support Project Team personnel as appropriate. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Soften the term “qualified,” to not imply formality of operations. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Make Project Management an attractive career path. </li></ul></ul></ul>
  3. 3. Training <ul><li>Issues: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Group A: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Lack of standards to ensure consistency in the PM training and qualification process. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Group B: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>How do we ensure we have competent Project Managers that are matched to project needs. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Issues extend to all of DOE not just NNSA. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Contractors should determine what constitutes a “Qualified” Manager. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Certifications alone are not sufficient. </li></ul></ul></ul>
  4. 4. Training <ul><li>Recommendations: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Group A: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Establish core competencies by site. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Establish a phased training program. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Establish a Project Manager career job ladder. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Provide basic project management training (e.g., PMI). </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Ensure DOE & Contractor team members are trained in the principles of project management. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Group B: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Delete the dollar hierarchy of levels identified on Page 3 of the PMWG brief. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Utilize the existing corporate systems in place for identifying qualified Project Managers. Each contractor has an inherent system for developing and qualifying their PM’s. These systems are typically more mature than DOE Certification levels. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Train PM’s and applicable teams on-site. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Eliminate “minimum requirements.” </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Eliminate “formal mentoring.” </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Consider less detailed recommendations. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Contractors will have an internal corporate system. </li></ul></ul></ul>
  5. 5. Tailoring <ul><li>Responsible Party: Robert Wilkinson / Robert Benedetti </li></ul><ul><li>Feedback Point of Contacts: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Fred Cowert (Group A) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Joel Eacker (Group B) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Objectives: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Group A: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Evaluate / Propose a tailoring plan for applicable projects at CD-0. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Propose a tailoring model. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>All infrastructure projects to be tailored. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Group B: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Provide a framework, template, or guidance of successful examples of tailoring within the DOE. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Look at a risk based matrix of applicable examples (e.g., Sandia RL Tanks). </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Delegation of the DOE O413.3-1 through PEP, enhancing local DOE and contractor authority. </li></ul></ul></ul>
  6. 6. Tailoring <ul><li>Issues: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Group A: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Indecision resulting in corresponding cost and schedule delays. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Group B: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Tailoring is being performed on a very limited basis (very little tailoring is occurring) which results in higher costs and schedule duration than necessary. </li></ul></ul></ul>
  7. 7. Tailoring <ul><li>Recommendations: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Group A: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Tailoring Plan at CD-0 </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Propose tailoring deliverable at CD-0 / Document Plan at CD-1 (e.g., combine AEP & PEP). </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Consider expert based (external reviews) to support approach. </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Customer Champion must be assigned (e.g., sponsor). </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Tailor Model </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Develop matrices specific to the size and complexity of DOE projects. </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Utilize lessons learned from other DOE Projects. </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Tailor Infrastructure Projects </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Delegation is crucial to success. </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Combine CD’s on smaller projects. </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Combine technical documents where applicable. </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Fewer reviews, consolidate, simplify, and standardize. </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Alternative financing of DOE Projects. </li></ul></ul></ul></ul>
  8. 8. Tailoring <ul><li>Recommendations: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Group B: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>There is no incentive, or in some instances, a negative incentive for DOE to approve tailoring. Tailoring and risk taking to achieve cost savings is punished, not rewarded. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Provide incentives / evaluate DOE project performance goals for similar cost and schedule savings - not compliance. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Declare tailoring plans in CD-0 or CD-1 PEP documents. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Consider developing a risk based approach to tailoring controls. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Incentivize the contractor and allow the contractor to implement appropriate controls to succeed. </li></ul></ul></ul>
  9. 9. Performance Measurement <ul><li>Responsible Party: Asa Kelley </li></ul><ul><li>Feedback Point of Contacts: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Thomas Johnson (Group A) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Lynne Schluter (Group B) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Objectives: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Group A: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Manage the execution of the project via the utilization of earned value tools (not an end to itself). </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Management and reporting regarding project status in terms of funding and schedule duration. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Development of a graded approach for implementation of earned value based upon the complexity of the project. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Group B: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Implement PC system based upon size and complexity of the project being managed (e.g., >$20M Engineering & Construction). Only the largest projects should require an EVMS. </li></ul></ul></ul>
  10. 10. Performance Measurement <ul><li>Issues: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Group A: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Identification of earned value tools which make sense to utilize based upon the size and complexity of the project being managed. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>The cost and schedule burden to implement a certified earned value system appears excessive given the potential benefits. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Group B: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>EVMS should be a management tool, not a snapshot. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>EVMS is only one tool of performance management. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>When is a certified EVMS worth the cost? </li></ul></ul></ul>
  11. 11. Performance Measurement <ul><li>Recommendations: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Group A: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Establish the tools required to effectively manage earned value data. Tools such as CPM and Trace Logic (Near Critical Path) analysis and actual start v. planned completion milestones. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Project Manager holds responsible managers responsible / accountable for project performance via periodic reviews. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Project Manager to personally perform variance analysis with responsible managers to ascertain the “why questions (e.g., the PM is actively involved with the process and responsible managers are aware of this).” </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Improved understanding by both DOE & Contractor management of earned value via training. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Base fee on performance, not the process. Use earned value as a management tool, not as a unit of fee determination. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>CAMS must provide the variance analysis and corrective action(s) required, not the PCE’s. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Establish cost, duration, and risk complexity criteria (thresholds) as a guide for determining which management tools will be invoked. </li></ul></ul></ul>
  12. 12. Performance Measurement <ul><li>Recommendations: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Group B: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Select PC tools tailored to performance requirements. </li></ul></ul></ul>
  13. 13. Risk & Contingency Allocation <ul><li>Responsible Party: Thomas Johnson </li></ul><ul><li>Feedback Point of Contacts: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Fred Cowert (Group A) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Dale Morgan (Group B) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Objectives: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Group A: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>To better define (standardize) contingency and management reserve. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>To increase project control over the use and application of contingency. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>To improve the development of contingency and management reserve (e.g., risk analysis input, level of confidence measures, etc). </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Develop a centrally managed risk database. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Group B: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Development of a system to capture risks that impact multiple sites and entire programs (e.g., HLW, TRU, PU, etc.). </li></ul></ul></ul>
  14. 14. Risk & Contingency Allocation <ul><li>Issues: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Group A: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Lack of consistency across the DOE complex regarding how risk risk assessments, mitigation planning, and corresponding contingency / management reserve are developed, utilized, and tracked. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Group B: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>There is no DOE system currently in place which tracks the impact of risks taken in aggregate over EM-1 and RW-1 projects (e.g., a measure of how a decision made on one DOE project may adversely impact another DOE project). </li></ul></ul></ul>
  15. 15. Risk & Contingency Allocation <ul><li>Recommendations: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Group A: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Develop standards for the definition and implementation of contingency and management reserve. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Establish consistent contractor level of confidence measures (e.g., 80% LOC). </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Provide greater control of contingency / management reserve to the contractor. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Provide meaningful reporting metrics and tracking tools to provide the client with a means for providing oversight. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Develop contingency / management reserve based upon project risk assessment results v. the application of a standard rate. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Develop a consistent means for tracking the utilization of contingency and management reserve. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Develop a central DOE risk database (systems engineering). </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Provide DOE projects access to planning / lessons learned. </li></ul></ul></ul>
  16. 16. Risk & Contingency Allocation <ul><li>Recommendations: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Group B: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Encourage the sharing of lessons learned in risk management through PMWG workshops / Communication forums among DOE sites. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Low probability, high consequence risk management in “template” and project (basis of estimate) assumptions. </li></ul></ul></ul>
  17. 17. Impact of Change over Time <ul><li>Responsible Party: Sam Formby </li></ul><ul><li>Feedback Point of Contacts: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Asa Kelley (Group A) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Lynne Schluter (Group B) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Objectives: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Group A: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Eliminate scope creep during design development. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Plan for external programmatic risks. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Improve project discipline of change control. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Group B: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Clarification from the DOE regarding change control processes. </li></ul></ul></ul>
  18. 18. Impact of Change over Time <ul><li>Issues: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Group A: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Change control processes and associated workflow processes are inconsistent from one DOE site to the next. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Group B: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>No issue stated. </li></ul></ul></ul>
  19. 19. Impact of Change over Time <ul><li>Recommendations: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Group A: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Enforce requirements documents. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Trend design as required. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Evaluate alternatives to meet requirements once a trend is identified. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Incorporate external programmatic risks in formal risk assessments. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Make clear decisions on the allocation and ownership of identified risks. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Develop appropriate contingencies based upon risk assessments. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Identify thresholds for change notification. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Formally notify the DOE of any changes that exceed change thresholds. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Execute a formal trend program. </li></ul></ul></ul>
  20. 20. Impact of Change over Time <ul><li>Recommendations: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Group B: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Develop a “controls impact template” of sources of change and ownership between project and client contingency / management reserve. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Sharing of lessons learned between the DOE and contractors regarding internal / external communications and change control. </li></ul></ul></ul>
  21. 21. Baseline Development <ul><li>Responsible Party: Lynne Schluter / Joel Eacker </li></ul><ul><li>Feedback Point of Contacts: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Robert Wilkinson (Group A) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Rich Tosetti (Group B) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Objectives: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Group A: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Combine PMWG Issues 1 & 2 under the new title “Baseline Development.” </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Organize by recommendations for DOE actions and actions contractors can initiate. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Achieve DOE / Contractor agreement on project requirements (as basis for estimate). </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Develop clear statement of uncertainty associated with early cost/schedule information. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Incorporate improved and more efficient external reviews to validate initial B/L development. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Improve ability to develop the project B/L within the limitations imposed by the Federal budget cycle. </li></ul></ul></ul>
  22. 22. Baseline Development <ul><li>Responsible Party: Lynne Schluter / Joel Eacker </li></ul><ul><li>Feedback Point of Contacts: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Robert Wilkinson (Group A) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Rich Tosetti (Group B) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Objectives: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Group B: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Combine PMWG Issues 1 & 2 under the new title “Baseline Development.” </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Improve clarity and accuracy of scope definition. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Future work in multi-year plans include some “locked-in” contingency that remains until better defined. </li></ul></ul></ul>
  23. 23. Baseline Development <ul><li>Issues: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Group A: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Premature project definition create inefficiencies during project execution based upon a fiscal year funding mechanism to meet multi-year budgetary requirements. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Group B: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Premature commitment to project scope and cost creates unattainable expectations for project execution. </li></ul></ul></ul>
  24. 24. Baseline Development <ul><li>Recommendations: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Group A: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Prepare a project requirements document approved by A&E and stakeholders prior to CD-0 (see Sam’s issue on soft mission need). </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Establish configuration control on the project requirements document. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Perform qualitative risk assessments to support CD-0. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Define the basis for estimate based upon project scope. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Provide cost / schedule with ranges representing uncertainties associated with ROM estimates. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Select reviewers who are SME’s in project technology. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Limit external review periods to one week. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Eliminate OECM from external review processes. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Utilize a single project data sheet that incorporates budgetary project control requirements. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Plan project execution activities based on CR’s being a way of life in the Federal budget system. </li></ul></ul></ul>
  25. 25. Baseline Development <ul><li>Recommendations: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Group B: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Identify corporate and client champions that have buy-in to scope the charter definition. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Develop the estimate based upon a range which incorporates both high and low credible scope appropriate for the phase of the project. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>No release of contingency until scope is better defined appropriate for the phase of the project. </li></ul></ul></ul>

×