1

ISOTC258 SG01 Governance

Meeting Report4-7 September 2012

1

04 September 2012

• Welcomes– Convenor welcomed all and wished everyone a

fruitful meeting.

• Roll Call & Introductions– Attendees introduced themselves and stated their

objectives/expectations for the meeting. The following persons were in attendance:

2

Roll Call• Rommert Stellingwerf SG01 Chair• Jaycee Krüger SG01 Secretary• Miles Sheppard TC258 Chair• Karl Best TC258 Secretary• Amin Saidoun IPMA Observer• Quynh Woodward ANSI Observer • Cristian Vazquez IRAM Argentina• Neveen Moussa SIA Australia• Pat Weaver SIA Australia• Dagmar Zuchi Austria

3

Roll Call• Carlos Braga ABNT Brazil• Babissakana ANOR Cameroon• Darya Duma SCC Canada• Reinhard Wagner DIN Germany• Kazuhiko Kato JISC Japan• Saburo Saeda JISC Japan• Aakihiko Sekiguchi JISC Japan• Jan Erik Horgen SN Norway• Jens Nørve SN Norway• Maria Do Rosário Bernardo IPQ Portugal

4

Roll Call• Giel Bekker SABS South Africa• Dirk Kruger SABS South Africa• Mthokozisi Ncube SABS South Africa• Elmar Roberg SABS South Africa• Thomas Carlqvist SIS Sweden• Torben Grut SIS Sweden• Steve Simister BSI UK• Patricia Garrett ANSI USA • Tor Osmundsen ANSI USA • Becky Winston ANSI USA

5

04 September 2012

• Language monitors:– Darya Duma SCC Canada– Aakihiko Sekiguchi JISC Japan

• Liaisons:– Dagmar Zuchi Liaison WG01 – Portfolio– Jan Erik Horgen Liaison WG01 – Portfolio– Reinhard Wagner Liaison TDG– Torben Grut Liaison TDG

6

04 September 2012• Convener’s report:

– Objectives of this meeting:• Debate an ISO standard for Project Governance• Get consensus on scope, target audience and definition of Project

Governance• Assess reference material on Project Governance• Define models for Project Governance • Start study report• Decide if and how to continue after the study (stop or WG) • Coordinate with WG01

– Agenda• Tuesday: Welcome, Work done, Scope, Target audience • Wednesday-Thursday: Continue study• Friday: study report, review/finalize NWIP, motion, close

7

8

Overall schedule SG01Date Location MilestoneFeb-2012 Paris Resolution SG1Mar-Jun-2012 Member registrations

Setup document sharing DropboxStart data collection and studyProcedure on persmissions on reference material

Jul-2012 Teleconf Progress4-7 Sep-2012 Pretoria Further discussion on reference material / definition / design of

modelsDecision to stop after study or go to NWIP (Proposal Tech. Spec.)

4q.2012 Further discussion on reference material / definition / design of models

Dec-2012 Teleconf Progress1q.2013 NWIP ballot

Finalize study reportTentatively week 13-May-2013 ?????

F2F with WG01Final study report

If WG: SG->WG02Start WD (Working Draft Tech. Standard)

9

Overall schedule SG01 (Cont.)

If WG:Date Location Milestone3q.2013 Teleconf ProgressSep-2013 Sweden

F2Fwith TC 258WD (Working Draft Tech. Standard)

1q.2014 Teleconf Progress2q.2014 ?????

F2F with WG01DTS (Draft Tech. Standard)

3q.2014 Teleconf ProgressSep-2014 ?????

F2F with TC 258TS (Tech.Standard)

4q.2014 Teleconf TS (Tech.Standard) published

Secretary’s report• Membership update:

– 42 members from 17 countries

– Plus 8 observers

– Plus Convener and secretary

– Total of 52 current members

• Membership registration in LiveLink is 40/52.

– Members not registered in LiveLink was encouraged to do so, as later on documents may well be posted there as well.

• Experiences using LiveLink and Dropbox for document sharing

– Dropbox has draw-backs and if items are deleted or changed, they get deleted or changed for everybody. Important that changed files are simply filed under a different name to identify version.

– The use of LiveLink for study work is not practical, and it was agreed that Dropbox remains the best solution, provided all members exercise discipline in how they use it. 10

Secretary’s report• Approval minutes of previous virtual meeting 30 July

• Action points meeting 30 July:– JCK to brief Pat Weaver about copyright extraction - DONE

– All members to study all documents and distil common themes - DONE.

– RS to Re-instate the lost archive documents in Dropbox - DONE

– Members to add as much as they can to Dropbox - DONE

– Members to summarize interesting documents and add to Dropbox - DONE

– Members to give comments on the provisional schedule for the Study Group to Convener – NO COMMENTS RECEIVED

– Rommert to generate a status report for plenary - DONE

– Pat Weaver will assist Jaycee to generate the copyright index – DONE, with thanks to Pat.

– Canada will generate a “Why statement on Project Governance” for discussion – DONE with thanks to Darya Duma

– RS to add the slides of meeting in Dropbox - DONE.

11

12

Report from TC258 Plenary• SG01 to take cognisance of the TDG brainstorm• Emphasis on liaison Portfolio & JTC/SC7• WG01 Reduced ballot time may affect SG01 time for comments as well.

Think about it.

Progress on IP and copyright• An index has been prepared. • Members may read and study materials in Dropbox – no circulation or

copying. Any extractions would have to be cleared with author and reference given. Can also refer.

• Members may only use for other purposes with proper acknowledgement of original author

• If any materials are to be used in the document to be generated by this group, specific permission will need to be obtained from author to do so.

• We have written permission from APM to use their documents (in Dropbox). Read only – no copying

13

Study Group Ground Rules 1 1. RS reminded SG01 that the ISO directives will be the central guiding document for

all operations.2. Secondary to above, but in full support is the TC 258 ground rules. These

prescribe:Participation– A country may name any number of individual experts to serve on a working group. – Decisions within the working group should be made by consensus whenever possible. Only if

consensus is not achievable or is difficult to evaluate as determined by the convener then the WG may resort to an informal “straw poll”. (See also ISO Directives Clause 1.12.1. For the definition of consensus see 2.5.6.)

– The WG should prepare, maintain, and share with new members a summary of the WG work, schedules, and operating procedures in order to get the new member up to speed as quickly as possible. Country mirror committees should brief new members on the country’s position and objectives related to the WG.

– New members of the WG should provide to the WG convener and other members a CV/resume or other summary of expertise related to the topic in order to assist the WG in assigning the person appropriate tasks.

Roles– The WG should appoint a member to be responsible for ensuring that WG communications and

discussions are presented in a clear and unambiguous manner for non-native English speakers.– The WG convener is responsible for ensuring the quality and consistency of WG drafts, and for liaising

with the TDG to ensure consistency of the WG’s work with the TC’s technical program.– The WG should appoint a member to be responsible for tracking terminology used, ensuring that

terminology is used consistently with other TC work, and to liaise with possible future glossary/terminology activities.

Members were requested to do their best to comply

14

Consensus• Consensus:

– general agreement, characterized by the absence of sustained opposition to substantial issues by any important part of the concerned interests and by a process that involves seeking to take into account the views of all parties concerned and to reconcile any conflicting arguments.

NOTE Consensus need not imply unanimity.

For SG01:1. Plenary discussion to reach agreement2. Consensus is everybody’s responsibility.3. Mature debate4. Final resort “straw poll”.

Ref. ISO/IEC GUIDE 2:2004(E/F/R) Standardization and related activities — General vocabulary

15

Progress to date and short term planning

• Giel Bekker gave a quick rundown of his “Project Governance schools of thought” document (In Dropbox and see next 5 slides)

– Single firm (SF) school– Multi-firm (MF) school– Large capital (LC) school

• Darya Duma presented her paper (the WHY STATEMENT) named “Context of Project Governance” (In Dropbox)

• Next Face-To-Face meeting:– It makes sense to try and combine WG1 and SG1 meetings as far as

possible.– Next WG01 meeting 18 to 22 March 2013– Germany offered to host in Berlin– Needs:

• WG01: 40 people, 3 rooms• SG01: 30 people, 1 plenary + 3 break-out rooms

• Members to be prepared to attend and confirm at next virtual meeting in December

Developing a Framework for Project Governance

“Developing” Approach(King II)

“Developed” Approach(Sarbanes Oxley)

“Global” Corporate Governance

Project Governance Framework

16

Framework for Project Governance (i)

Corporate Governance Project Governance

Board of Directors and Audit Committee Project Steering Committee

Composition • Sufficient size • Comprised of executive and non-executive

members • Preferably a majority of non-executives, of

whom a sufficient number should be independent

• Chairperson should be independent

(list Steering Committee composition requirements and levels of independence, competency and capability)

Responsibility • Board has ultimate accountability for the affairs of the company

• Board should adopt a formal Charter describing its responsibility, which should be disclosed annually

(list how responsibilities and accountabilities should be handled within a project)

Audit Committee to Board of Directors

• Levels of independency• Financial literacy

(Level of estimating and cost control management)

17

Framework for Project Governance (ii)Corporate Governance Project Governance

Financial Reporting and Internal Control Cost Estimating and Cost Control

Financial Reporting Responsibility

•Board must report certain items annually regarding the preparation of financial statements and the use of effective internal controls •Quarterly certifications by the CEO and CFO regarding compliance with the Exchange Act

(who takes responsibility for cost estimation and how must cost control be executed and reported)

Financial Disclosures •Prohibition of certain non-GAAP info•Required disclosures in quarterly and annual reports of all material off-balance sheet transactions and other defined relationships•All material correcting adjustments to the financial statements must be made

(level of financial and other interest disclosure among project stakeholders)

Internal Controls •Internal control considered part of the risk management process•Board must implement and maintain generally recognized risk management and internal control models•Disclosures must be made about the risk management process•Requirement for quarterly certifications by the CEO and CFO regarding their responsibility over the disclosure controls and procedures

(formal requirements wrt risk, quality and impact on project financial viability)(any reference to project life-cycle management, project management in general and project control)

18

Framework for Project Governance (iii)

Corporate Governance Project GovernanceAccounting and Auditing Project Reviews and Audits

Independence •External auditors should observe the highest level of business and professional ethics and should be objective and aware of their accountability to shareholders•Prohibits defined activities by the external auditor•Stricter partner rotation rules, limits on employment of former external auditors, and prohibition of fees earned by the audit partner for certain non-audit services

(any form of independence requirements from project auditors)

Interaction with Companies

•Requires an effective internal audit function with a formal internal audit charter•Requires mandatory communications between the external auditor and the audit committee

(any stipulations and requirements with respect to audit function and communications)

New Attestation Report

•External auditor must issue an attestation report on management’s internal control report

(any form of attestation requirements)

Disclosure •Requires separate disclosures of the amounts paid to the external auditor for non-audit services with a detailed description of the nature of services•Requires disclosures of fees paid to a company’s principal external auditor for the two most recent years with a description of the nature of services

(any requirements with respect to disclosure of auditors compensation)

19

Framework for Project Governance (iv)Corporate Governance Project Governance

Organisational Ethics and Remuneration Ethical, responsible conduct and conflict of interest

Code of Ethics •Standards of ethical behaviour should be codified in a code of ethics•Adherence to this code should be disclosed •Must disclose whether a code of ethics applicable to senior management has been adopted•Code should be made publicly available and any changes to the code or waivers from the code must be disclosed

(any requirements with respect to ethics and ethical behaviour by all or specific stakeholders)

Compensation •Performance-related elements of compensation should represent a substantial portion of the total compensation package•Vesting periods, re-pricing of options and other pertinent information related to granting of options should be approved by shareholders

(list any indication of requirements with respect to compensation of key project personnel, including Steering Committee)

Safety, health and environment

•Included in business processes (list any formal requirements that could be legally binding)

Social •Requires detail regarding inclusion of all local labour and stakeholders

(list any items required with respect to social responsibilities)

20

Scope, Target audience, DefinitionRound 1 – SCOPE:

• What we have: Our PPP Framework:– Some definitions from ISO 21500:

• Governance: is the framework by which an organization is directed and controlled.

• Project governance: includes but is not limited to those areas of organizational governance that are specifically related to project activities.

• Project governance: may include subjects such as defining the management structure; the policies, processes and methodologies to be used; limits of authority for decision-making; stakeholder responsibilities and accountabilities; and interactions such as reporting and the escalation of issues or risks. The responsibility for maintaining the appropriate governance of a project is usually assigned either to the project sponsor or to a project steering committee.

– Some definitions from ISO 38500 (Corporate Government of IT):• This standard provides guiding principles for directors of organizations (…) on

the effective, efficient, and acceptable use of Information Technology (IT) within their organizations.

• This standard applies to the governance of management processes (and decisions) relating to the information and communication services used by an organization. These processes could be controlled by IT specialists within the organization or external service providers, or by business units within the organization.

21

Scope Round 1 • Pat Weaver presented his contribution:

(In Dropbox)

• RS also held up another example of looking at it

• And there are more …..

• How about a very simple depiction of our scope?

22

Scope Round 1 • Some comments on “Rommert’s Onion” slide:

– Rather change the wording at the bottom to “Enable the right projects to achieve the right results’

– Add the word “ Execution” to the centre circle.– Add another slice– Change “Project Governance” to “PPP Governance”– Governance to be in the centre and not around the outside

• The Japanese presentation in ISOTC258 Plenary was requested to be shown again to assist identifying ‘the beast’

• Sweden made a presentation out of their document already in the Dropbox

• USA presented the following graphic (in Dropbox) in an attempt to distil thoughts around scope of this document.

23

Scope Round 1Some comments: • Efficiency and effectiveness. We are confusing efficiency and effectiveness with governance. • Try not to focus only on projects.• Do the projects for the right outcome. • Is strategic management “Enabling projects to get the right results’?.• Enabling and ensuring the right project done right.• Why not portfolio, program, project governance?• Project governance, portfolio , program governance is different.• Corporate governance is the next layer on the onion.• Governance of projects in the centre. • When translating, it will be governance of projects in French and Russian.• Suggestion: Make it corporate governance of projects. • The NWIP stated project management governance.• Don’t get bogged down. If you have enough of a feel. Go on to the next bit.• Metaphor is war. We need to sow seeds. No more war type language.

24

Scope Round 1 • For now, lets call it “THE BEAST’

25

26

Target audience Round 1What we have: • ISO 21500:

– project sponsor– project steering committee

• Draft NWIP for SG01:– any type of organization, including public, private or community organizations, and– Any type of project, irrespective of complexity, size, or duration.

• Canada paper – “Why Statement”– Auditors and regulators so that they can verify that an appropriate framework for project governance is provided and

implemented,– Members of Executive Boards so that they can ensure that the appropriate framework for project governance is

created that protects shareholder interests and manages risk,– Agents and managers who are authorized to act on behalf of an organization so that they can implement and work

within the identified framework for project governance,– Senior managers, project sponsors, steering committees and project boards who have oversight for projects,

programs and portfolios,– Project management office staff so that they can implement the frameworks for project governance,– Project, program and portfolio managers so that they can execute projects, programs and portfolios within the

framework of project governance,– Other project stakeholders, such as project financial investors and special interest groups, so that they can identify

how their interests are being protected,– Developers of national or organizational standards for use in developing specific national or organization processes or

requirements on project governance.

27

Target audience Round 1What we have (Cont.): • ISO 38500 (Corporate governance of IT):

– directors of organizations (including owners, board members, directors, partners, senior executives, or similar)

– those advising, informing, or assisting directors: – senior managers;– members of groups monitoring the resources within the organization;– external business or technical specialists, such as legal or accounting;– specialists, retail associations, or professional bodies;– vendors of hardware, software, communications and other IT products;– internal and external service providers (including consultants);– IT auditors

• USA made a presentation on their view of the audience (in Dropbox)

Target audience Round 1USA made a presentation on their view of the audience (in Dropbox)

28

Target audience Round 1Norway made a presentation on their view of the audience (in Dropbox)

29

Target audience Round 1The group then plotted the potential target audience in the various levels as they saw it

Target audience – v0

30

Target Audience - Round 1Some comments: • A bit of discussion about the use of “framework” as a word. Giel’s paper talks about “framework”. • Corporate governance has to comply with code of ethics. Project finances are much less certain

documents.• Part of Code of Ethics. • Is this document going to be a what or a how?• Auditors provide information – management function or worker function. • There is a difference between people who will use the document and those for whom we are writing the

document.• No retail associations. • Add suppliers and clients.

31

Definition - Round 1What we have:• Cadbury 1992 = OECD 1999 (2004) = ISO 38500 (Corp. Gov. of IT)

– Corporate governance: The system by which organizations are directed and controlled.

• ISO 38500 (Corp. Gov. of IT) – Corporate governance of IT: The system by which the current and future use of IT is directed and controlled. – Corporate governance of IT involves evaluating and directing the use of IT to support the organization and monitoring this use to

achieve plans. It includes the strategy and policies for using IT within an organization.

• ISO 38500:– Management: The system of controls and processes required to achieve the strategic objectives set by the organisation's

governing body. Management is subject to the policy guidance and monitoring set through corporate governance.

• Ref. “Schools of thought” (Giel Bekker)– Single firm– Multi firm– Large capital

32

Definition - Round 1• Discussions:

– Reference to “Defining Project Governance’ For Large Capital Projects” by M.C. Bekker and H. Steyn: “Project governance of large capital projects is defined as a set of management systems, rules, protocols, relationships, and structures that provide the framework within which decisions are made for project development and implementation to achieve the intended business or strategic motivation”

– The OECD Principles of Corporate Governance states: "Corporate governance involves a set of relationships between a company’s management, its board, its shareholders and other stakeholders. Corporate governance also provides the structure through which the objectives of the company are set, and the means of attaining those objectives and monitoring performance are determined.“

– A suggestion was proposed to assign a working group for the definition - not implemented

– The following potential definitions emerged:

33

Definition - Round 1

34

35

Discussion on scope, target audience and definition – Round 2

”The Big 5”

? ?

Scope - Round 2• Quick revisit to what we had in round 1 (refer to notes above for detail)• Ended with this:

• RS asked if it would be valuable to look at it from the value chain perspective

Decommission

36

Discussion:• Too simplistic• Already governance in various parts of value chain. Couple these, do not

position it linearly. • When does the project start? What are the borders?• Sweden: Move from Need to Result. See figure.

37

Scope - Round 2

• USA: Not only about project, also about things surrounding the project. There’s ethics, rules & regulations to enable project to proceed.

• See diagram. Concentrate on project, not PPP – Too complex• Portugal. No beginning no end. Governance stays stable for all projects.

38

Scope - Round 2

• Way to build system is top down, not bottom up.• Cameroun: we need simple government – not too complex. Be careful we

do not make it too complex. It should be a usable standard – even an NGO. We must answer to the need. Must be flexible enough not to tie down the users who may be less mature in portfolio & programme

• Work on what is principles of project governance? Start there. Answer questions. At APM could not solve problem, and created document on principles.

• Is business case and benefit realisation part of our scope?• Sweden made presentation on project governance structure. (In Dropbox)

– Clear line to corporate governance– Clear decision making from projects , steering group

review boards etc.– Demonstrates why PPP part of scope. Integral to

scope and hard to detach– Comment: decision structure not governance structure

39

Scope - Round 2

40

• Norwegian presentation (in Dropbox):• Shows some principles of governance of projects• B1 gate sits in portfolio in our model. Benefits realisation is end point of

project.• Confusing.• Most sensible way forward is principles – this addresses the people.• Where is the governance in these pictures? Not disagreeing at all,

governance contains all these processes.

Scope - Round 2

41

• Back to Scope V0 picture: (In Dropbox)– Need time added to the process– Need principles in here

• What about something like this? (In Dropbox)– Pink circle involves the missing area of managing

multiple projects– Want the wheel to turn so it shows movement.

Like Deming cycle– Blue-green always present.– Do we need “ears”?– Remove “management of multiple projects”. To be researched further– “Project Delivery capability’ to be removed– In Cameroun we have a different meaning to “corporate governance”.

Scope - Round 2

42

Scope - Round 2Scope v1

43

RS did a quick revisit to what we had in round 1 (refer to notes above for detail)

Discussion:• Will standard be written only for target audience and ignore the rest? If

only for target audience, no prioritization. Be careful that purpose and value is not diminished.

• Purpose for use is not defined. How they read it is to satisfy their needs. Careful to focus on only a few. People will take out what they need. Do not limit the audience

• We have version 0 now.

• No need to talk more. On to Definition

Target audience - Round 2

44

RS did a quick revisit to what we had in round 1 (refer to notes above for detail)Discussion:• Explored Bekker & Steyn Delphi Study: Project governance is a set of management systems,

rules, protocols, relationships, and structures that provide the framework within which decisions are made for project development and implementation to achieve the intended business or strategic motivation.

• Alternative to Rommert’s onion: Introduce one more band inside governance band. Disagree- Must think only of governance of PPP and not make it too wide. Up to corporation whether they employ PPP and this is prescriptive.

• Talked about Governance of the beast (“The big 5”) One of the following: 1-The act of direction and control on projects, programs and portfolios; 2-The system by which projects are directed and controlled; 3-Assure to do the right projects right.

• 1- The act of direction and control on projects, programs and portfolios:– Words not OK. Think about “Direction and Control” – too direct – too much management. All previous attempts use

these words – leave as is.– “The act” not correct. System is much better as described in 2 below.

Definition - Round 2

45

Discussion (cont.):• 2-The system by which projects are directed and controlled:

– Words not OK. Think about “Direction & Control” – too direct. All previous attempts use these words – leave as is.

– What about add “selection” before “direction”. – Careful not to confuse target audiences. Rather look at principles We are using words differently with

each other. Important to understand what WG01 is doing and how they define terms of PPP. – PPP are only work formats. Talking about specific things. On corporate level different that for PPP.

Structure is important. To understand what we are talking about.– How about: Governance of the beast: the act of applying the organisations policies and procedures?

No.– What about leaving out “and controlled”? Makes it simple. “2-The system by which projects are

directed”.– Not only about systems – also about behaviour. What about framework and principles? “2-The

framework and principles by which projects are directed and controlled”

• 3-Assure to do the right projects right:– Wrong. There is no framework. Suggest not to adopt

Definition - Round 2

46

Definition - Round 2

47

Consensus - Scope• Remove arrows• Remove the things in outside circle• Organisational Capability – replace with The

Management of Multiple Projects• Replace Organisational Support with

Organisational Capabilities• Pink ring to be out. Needed to cater for the

word “control” in definition. Need the pink ring to cater for organisational structures to manage projects.

• Management of multiple projects name is cumbersome. Organisational framework. Yes.

• Why not have 3 parts to the standard: One for projects, one for programmes and one for portfolios.

• For study purposes the following depiction was agreed upon (see next slide)

48

PortfolioManagement

ProgramManagement

Project Management

PPP Management/OrganizationalStructures???

Governance of theCorporation / Organization

Projects

PPP Organizational Capabilities????

Scope of Governance Study– v3

Governance

of projects??

Scope of the standard/

specification

??? ???

49

Consensus - Audience• Add external auditors• Expand on 4th level

• Ended with as to the right• Concensus reached for study purposes.

50

Target audience of document – v0External Auditors

Direction &Control

Direction &

Control

Direction &

Control

Governance

Senior Management

Management

“Other human resources”

Executive BoardsPartners

Executive PMOs

AuditorsSenior Managers

ManagersAgents

SponsorsSteering Committees

Project Boards

Project Managers

Program Managers

Portfolio Managers

Regulators

FinanciersSIGs

Standards DevelopersProfessional Associations

Stra

tegi

cO

pera

tiona

lSuppliers

Clients ???

Auditors Operational PMOs

Statutory Auditors

Owners/shareholders

Team members,

51

Consensus - Definition• Replace “projects” with PPP in title

• Replace “projects” with P(PP) in the wording

52

Definition – v4

Governance of PPP

The framework and principles by which P(PP) is directed and controlled.

(program mgt may incl. “other work”)

• Consensus reached

53

• RS reminded members of the presentation in Paris and the intended modus operandi.

• It is time for group work to extract what we need from reference materials

• Look for common denominators and shared terms / definitions:

– All: Subset of corporate governance => study ISO Corporate Governance

– Strategy– Control – Relationships– Direction– Decision making – Framework– Compliance– Structures– Macro environment– Sharing of knowledge and information – Not management, etc.

Reference Materials

54

• RS gave some examples of what may be extracted from the reference materials.

– A simple list of principles

– A detailed list of principles with their definitions

– Models

Reference Materials

55

The task:• Break into 3 subgroups: Decided to focus on the following 3 areas, with

1 group for each:– Projects– Programs– Portfolios

• Assess reference documents (45+) and review• Follow a bottom up process and each group extract information about:

– Principles– Processes– Key words, terms and definitions– Models

• Each group lists what was found with reference to particular document to enable ease of later reference.

• RS provided a photo of the results of the brainstorming session of Monday.

• An interim reporting session (in plenary) was held at 13h00 on 06 September to check progress. See next page for discussions.

Reference Materials

56

Report-back at 13h00 on 06 September:• Important that spread-sheets are similar to enable combination later• Pink circle is emerging as being important in the model• Took brainstorm words from Monday and created spreadsheet with that

as basis.• Did word searches in all documents and found articles on all words• Documenting in various formats (Doc, Xls and Ppt). Will unify later.• Need to focus on finding definitions on area of focus for groups, relevant

to governance specific.• No major issues to date

Reference Materials

57

Report back at 16h30 on 06 September 2012• Projects group:

– Progressed satisfactorily.– Have no processes to extract. Concentrating on principles.– Principles will identify convergence or divergence – not terminology– Found items applicable to the pink ring.– Tomorrow arrange raw data and place in format

• Program group:– Found nothing applicable to program management. Potential that subject not mature yet.

Suspected that governance on programs may not be a subject– Identified handy information and extracted from documents.– On processes have a lot. Busy to copy & paste.– Agreed to concentrate on principles.

• Portfolio group– Many of stated “governance” content refers to management tasks.– Governance of PPP mostly interrelated.– Appropriate to add topic of “PPP organisational structure & capabilities”– Not found distinctive definition on or model of “governance of project portfolio” – only

elaborations– Need elaboration on a common taxonomy of governance language. Must add further common

elements to the existing ones (model, processes, principles, terms, definitions, elements)– Will finish tomorrow.

Reference Materials

58

• Plan for the day 08h30 on 07 September 2012– Split into groups until 11h00– Report-back/status at 11h00 in SG01 plenary– TC258 Plenary at 13h00– Resume SG01 plenary at 13h30 to establish present status and decide way forward

• SG01 Plenary at 11h00: feedback– Program

• Got definition in heads and built around that• Typically complex – not only size and value, also importance• Focussed on processes, principles , terms and models.• Found definitions of some terms and processes in various places – they o exist. Nothing satisfied us 100%

but they are there.• Collected all & focussed on principles. Went through each, one at a time and

reworded/simplified/skipped/grouped/created. Came up with few – about 13. Agreed on all wording.• Asked difference between program and project and found very little • Decided NOT management, but rather guidance. Many models discussed earlier more about management.

Moved it up one level.• When looked at it, there is little about governance only. More on PPP.

• Suggested liaison with projects group.

Reference Materials

59

• SG01 Plenary at 11h00: feedback (cont.)– Portfolio

• Process: Created spreadsheet with all models etc.• Categorise brainstorming and mapped with model, process, principle. Thanks to Terry

Cooke-Davies• Showed result of amended Terry spreadsheet. What he called activities, we think can be

anything else.• Decided PPP inseperable from governance. Then looked at governance of PPP and not only

portfolio • MECE (mutually exclusive collectively exhaustive) principle• Principles are overriding and found 7 principles for “Governance of PPP” see Dropbox for

details• Think that processes and models must be developed from these 7 principles• This is work in progress. We had restricted time.

Reference Materials

60

• SG01 Plenary at 11h00: feedback (cont.)– Projects

• Have 84 terms & definitions collected,• 19 principles collected• 12 processes collected.• See convergence with what the other groups presented.• Have some more work to do , but because of so much information available, we will need

more work• Not only the principles, but also the words behind must converge. We are not sure whether

converging or diverging yet.• Interrelation with group 3 is clear – liaison necessary.

– Overall:• Suggestion: In next few months create a summary document, so if something new comes

along, can map directly in there instead of simply adding to the heap.• Opinion: we are converging.• Rommert gave what he will present at TC258 plenary.• Emerging consensus on scope, audience and definition

• TC258 Plenary at 13h00:–

• SG01 Plenary at 13h30:–

Reference Materials

61

• Emerging consensus on Scope, Target audience, Definition• Collected enough data using the 80/20 principle. Have 100+ documents

available in database with Models, Principles, Processes, Terms & Definitions

• Few Models and Processes found• Emerging convergence on Principles• Discussed potential ways forward. Karl Best briefly explained how the 4

options for publishing ISO documents (TR, PAS, TS, IS) will work. Decision was to let it soak for a little while more before decide.

• Reminded that information is yet incomplete, and further study is required before a report can be issued.

Conclusions

62

Conclusions

63

Conclusions

Actions from this meeting1. Comply to group ground rules2. Prepare to discuss date of next F2F meeting in Berlin3. Liaisons with other groups to be prepared to report on

work done at every meeting4. Complete PPP group work & send to PW by end

September.5. Integrate PPP group work into single document by mid

Oct.6. Draft a proposed layout for report by mid Oct.7. 1st Draft document SR v0 circulate by mid November

8. Meet 26 November 2012 – 15h00 GMT WebEx

AllAll

DZ, JEH, RW, TG

PPP leads

PW + PPP leads

RSPW + PPP

leadsRS

64