OGC Gateway ‘Brand News’ and information Phil Kemp Head of OGC Gateway™ Brand Assurance...

OGC Gateway ‘Brand News’ and information

Phil Kemp

Head of OGC Gateway™ Brand Assurance

Northern Ireland Civil Service – P3O Workshop – February 2010

What am I covering?

1. Revised RPA & Workbooks

2. Assurance of Action Plans (AAP)

3. Gateway Developments

- Future Developments

- Gateway Training

- Brand Assurance

4. Major Programme & Project (MPP) reporting - Causes of Confidence

© Crown Copyright 2010 - This is a value-added product that falls outside the scope of Her Majesty's Stationery Office (HMSO) Click-Use Licence. Applications to reproduce/reuse material in this publication or contained on the OGC Website should be sent to OGC

RPA 2009 Revision Drivers for Change

Reflect the changing Programme/project environment

Recognise impact and complexity issues in the assessment

Move from “rigid” number driven tool

Address “technical” problems ( e.g. firewalls & embedded code)

Remove IT & buildings bias

Bring more consistency across UK public sector

Driver – the Sutherland Report


Modus Operandi

Views sought through an RPA Working Group Assessment of other assessment tools Consideration of APM and Cranfield Univ. complexity models Logical trial of three Proof of Concept (POC) models based on:

Delivery Confidence Criteria

“Idiot” Questions

Impact/Complexity models

Impact/Complexity-based model - Bench tested by OGC, selected Hubs, projects and DGCs Piloted July- November 2009 (parallel running) Go-Live December 2009 in Central Civil Government (OGC) Adopted by Scotland, Holland, Canberra, Health*, MoD* Victoria* * Piloting


Overview of the 2009 RPA Risk POTENTIAL Assessment

SRO (programme/project) Self-Assessment

Incremental assessments - building a picture

Table A - Impact Assessment Table B - Complexity Assessment Table C - Overall Risk Potential Assessment

Validation (by Portfolio Manager or equivalent)

RPA starts the conversation about assurance

RPA assessment confirmed at Gateway Assessment meeting


What is Assurance of Action Plans?

• An OGC led process to re-assesses Delivery Confidence in the light of the proposed actions following a HR Gateway Review or other OGC assurance where Delivery Confidence has been assessed as Red or Amber/Red.

Why AAP?

The overall purpose of AAP is to ensure Delivery Confidence in Projects is raised to an appropriate level that will enable delivery of aims to time cost and quality.

“Not letting go” of HR projects in difficulty


AAP Basic Process

AAP Team:• OGC Lead• RTL/M• Dept rep

AAP Team:• OGC Lead• RTL/M• Dept rep

Initiating OGC assurance event

Action Plan

drawn up by

project

•Reassessed DC•Recommendations•Next steps

•Reassessed DC•Recommendations•Next steps

•Key issues•DCA component status•Required changes

•Key issues•DCA component status•Required changes

• Delivery Confidence Red or Amber/Red

• Delivery Confidence Red or Amber/Red

Formal letterwith revised DCand next steps

Formal letterwith revised DCand next steps

AAP team identified

AAP Review

Exec Dir Letter to

SRO

Potential for additional AAPPotential for additional AAP


AAP Benefits

• AAP provides the SRO and his/her stakeholders

– With assurance that the action plan developed is likely to address the issues and increase delivery confidence, or

– An early warning if the plan still falls short.

• AAP promotes a structured response to OGC recommendations and helps project teams focus on adequately addressing the key factors undermining delivery confidence;


Escalation & Wider ReportingFor CCG Programmes and Projects OGC Gateway Reviews

Escalation to Perm Sec/NAO by OGC

Perm Sec letter (NAO) on a Single DC Red Gateway (High Risk projects only)

Replaces “Double Red” letters

Arrangements for Medium risk and HR Amber-Reds still to be determined

Ongoing discussions with NAO

Wider Gateway report dissemination (within Depts), by SRO

Ensure visibility of issues and share lessons learned

Ensuring actions taken by appropriate bodies

SRO to send reports to CIO, Commercial and COE, plus local arrangements as appropriate


OGC Gateway Developments: An evolving product

OGC Aim:To contribute to a measurable improvement in the Government’s major programmes and projects, through regular reporting and assurance.

Drivers - Transforming Gov’t Procurement & OEP reports - Meeting customer (SRO) expectations - Changing Programme/Project environment - NAO review - Brand management: quality and reputation


AAP• complete evaluation

• determine “launch”

ESCALATION• complete strawman

• resolve issues

• integrate AAP

• test with NAO

• consult on MR

• inform on HR

Gateway

Feedback• revise A & M process

• revisit proformas

• redefine roles (PL & CM)

• set KPIs

Delivery Confidence• collate experience of DCA

• “what would make DCA red" change

• form a proposition to update DCA

• consult with stakeholder sample

• refine and test with NAO

GATE 5• draft “the case for G5”

• illustrative case studies

• data on uptake – set KPIs

• proactively manage (PLs)

Quality Assurance• update work

• design long term vision/options

• prioritise quick wins e.g. DCA

Progressive Co-ordinated Communications Plan

Document and Operationalise

Co-ordinate with Workbook Refresh Project

DKS

PK

RK NGRK

SoM

RK

AWDKS

ALL +

RPA• complete pilot

• assess and fine tune

• formal launch

• set KPIs

• monitor use/effect

PK

Starting Gate• embed process

• post pilot comms

• ops implications

• measure & KPIs?

DR


New RPA Live

OperationalOperational

OGC Gateway Training


Type of Workshop Who should attend Number of Participants

Length

OGC Gateway™ Awareness Workshop

Anyone who has an interest or is likely to be involved in the OGC Gateway process

Up to 20 Three hours(Two workshops can be run in one day)

Preparing to be an OGC Gateway™ Reviewer Workshop

Mandatory for all would be Reviewers for Medium/High Risk Reviews. Valuable also for Low Risk Reviewers

Min 8Max 12

One day

Review Team Member to Leader Workshop

Recently accredited Medium and High Risk Review Team Leaders..Experienced Medium and High Risk Review Team Members who have the potential to become Review Team Leaders.

Up to 12 3.5 hours(Two workshops can be run in one day)

Review Team Leader Masterclass

Mandatory that current RTLs of Medium/High Risk Reviews attend at least every 18 months

Up to 18 One day

Delivery ConfidenceWorkshop

Current RTLs and RTM’s and any SROs interested in understanding Delivery Confidence

Up to 14 3.5 hours

DGC Workshop Current DGCs to understand the role and encourage consistency across the departments

Minimum 8Maximum 15

One day

Refresher Briefing Accredited OGC Gateway Review Team Members requiring an update

Up to 14 3.5 hours

OGC Gateway – Brand Assurance Established to ensure a sustainable capability (brand and quality assurance)

Hub & MR delegation accreditation standards & approval processes established

Gateway Governance Framework – Gateway Board & Stakeholder Groups

Reviewer training refreshed

Intellectual Property and Trade Mark management

OGC Gateway delivery through Authorised hubs

Authorised hubs are: Central Civil Gov’t (OGC), UK Health, Local Government, Defence, Scottish Government & Northern Ireland, Australian State of Victoria and Netherlands Gov’t.

Welsh Assembly Government & UK Police hubs to be authorised in 2010 -11

Hubs in Australia (4) and New Zealand to be authorised in 2010 -11

Current international interest from France, Japan, South Korea, Israel, Jordan, UAE, South Africa, Saudi Arabia, Canada, Bosnia, Kurdistan, Jordan, Singapore


• Co-ordinated overview of critical programmes across the whole of Government that shows progress towards political goals

• Enable Ministers identify political consequences of projects or programmes not delivering to time, cost or quality

• Enable Treasury to identify financial and other consequences of projects or programmes not delivering to time, cost or quality

• Identify common trends and themes applying to all major projects and programmes

• Identify areas of best and poor practice that can be applied to major projects and programmes

• Identify where additional support for individual projects and programmes may be necessary

• Single, simple reporting chain that avoids multiple reporting and is easily interpreted

Why have an integrated reporting process

Major Programme & Project reporting


MPP Portfolio – Q4 FY 2009/2010MOD Defence Info I/structure Defence Training Strategic deterrent Carrier Strike FSC FRES

DCSF Contact Point Building Schools

DWP Child Support re-design Enabling Savings Pension Transformation Employment Support A’ce

DEFRA Whole Farm

FCOFuture Firecrest

Cabinet Office Public Sector Network

DCLG Fire Resilience Thames Gateway Infrastr. Planning Commission

DCMS Olympics – Construction Olympics – Games Olympics – Legacy Digital switchover

DFT Crossrail M25 widening

Home Office E-Borders National Identity Scheme Olympics Security IMPACT Vetting and Barring

ONS Census 2011

MOJ NOMIS Prisons Capacity LIBRA

BIS Nuclear Decommission Carbon Capture

HMRC PAYE Programme Compliance/Enforcement Govt Banking

Dept Health Pandemic Flu Electronic Prescribing National Spine Summary records

DIUS Medical Research Centre


The MPP Process

Secretariesof StateCST

PrimeMinister

Permanent Secretaries

CIO Council

OGC/TG

CIOsCOEs

Projects and Programmes

Validation& formulating theview of the Centre

Assessment &Dept Approval

Decisions

Strategic DirectionEndorsement

Actions by:a. Perm Secsb. OGC/DTG

Self AssessmentData provision

HMT Spending Teams

No10 Advisors

PMDU

Commercial Delivery Board


Fund

ing;

08/

09;C

SR

Ben

efits

(£m

)

PorgrammePorgramme 100m100m1500(No)1500(No)

Tot

al C

osts

£m

(Rev

ised

)

Skill

s, c

apab

ilitie

s

Del

iver

y C

onfid

ence

Aim

s an

d Sc

ope

Bus

ines

s re

adin

ess

Gov

erna

nce

Proc

esse

s

Dep

artm

ent/

Org

anis

atio

n

Prog

ress

on

reco

mm

enda

tions

G(0)??/08G(0)??/08

G(0)03/07G(0)03/07

2010(No)2010(No)

Dep

ende

ncie

s

PRO

GR

AM

ME

STA

GE

Stage 500500DeptDept

MPP Project/Programme Dashboard

Nex

t Rev

iew

Last 2Gateway ReviewsE

nd D

ate

(Rev

ised

)

STA

RT

DA

TE

MM YYMM YY

G(1)03/07G(1)03/07

PROGRAMMEDATA

CONTEXT FINANCIAL ASSURANCE

THE MOST IMPORTANTINDICATOR

400m400m


Fu

ndin

g; 0

7/08

;CS

R

Ben

efits

(£m

)

Tot

al C

osts

£m

(Rev

ised

)

Skill

s, c

apab

ilitie

s

DEL

IVER

Y

CO

NFI

DEN

CE

Aim

s an

d Sc

ope

Bus

ines

s re

adin

ess

Gov

erna

nce

Proc

esse

s

DEP

AR

TMEN

T

Prog

ress

on

reco

mm

enda

tions

Dep

ende

ncie

s

PRO

GR

AM

ME

STA

GE(

Star

t yea

r)

Dashboard summaries

Nex

t Rev

iew

Last 2ReviewsE

nd D

ate

(Rev

ised

)

RESTRICTED - MANAGEMENT

3m3m21(No)

21(No)

TBDTBDG(3)09/08G(3)09/08

03/12(No)03/12(No)

UnderWay(06) NANA 9m 9m

7.7m 7.7m600m-1.4bn600m-1.4bn

MPRGTBCMPRGTBC

10/10(Yes)10/10(Yes)

UnderWay(07) TBDTBD

MPRG10/07MPRG10/07

G(1)06/07G(1)06/07

MPRG05/08MPRG05/08

161m 161m2500(Yes)2500(Yes)

G(0)12/08G(0)12/08

G(4)05/08

FL

G(4)05/08

FL

03/12(No)03/12(No)

UnderWay(03) TBDTBD 575m 575m

G(3)05/08

LT

G(3)05/08

LT

100m100m224(No)224(No)

G(4b)05/09G(4b)05/09

G(4a)09/08G(4a)09/08

03/10(No)03/10(No)

Post C’tract(04) 620620 228m 228m

G(3)04/07G(3)04/07

11.6 11.67500(Yes)7500(Yes)

04/39(Yes)04/39(Yes)

UnderWay(04)

879m879m 519m519m

MPRG04/08MPRG04/08

500m500m16bn(No)16bn(No)

12/17(No)12/17(No)

Under Way TBDTBD 2246m2246m

MPRG09/09MPRG09/09

MPRG09/08MPRG09/08

19m19m

95m 95m401(No)401(No)

G(5)12/09G(5)12/09

G(4)02/08G(4)02/08

02/12(No)02/12(No)

PostC’tract(05) NilNil 188M 188M

G(4)11/08G(4)11/08

G403/09

177m 177m9.6bn(Yes)9.6bn(Yes)

G(0)MPRG02/09

G(0)MPRG02/09

G(0)08/06G(0)08/06

03/11(No)03/11(No)


G(0)05/07G(0)05/07

3.53.57.6(No)7.6

(No)G(0)03/09G(0)03/09

06/11(No)06/11(No)

NilNil 7.5 7.5

G(1/2)06/08G(1/2)06/08

2842m2842m15.3bn(No)

15.3bn(No)

MPRG01/09MPRG01/09

G(0)12/04G(0)12/04

TBDTBD NilNil 9319m 9319m

G(0)04/06G(0)04/06

UnderWay(03)

UnderWay(08)

G(3b)10/08G(3b)10/08


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Baseline Q1 Q2 Q3 Q40%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Baseline Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Skills and CapabilitiesDelivery Confidence

Emerging trends 2008-2010


Fu

ndin

g; 0

7/08

;CS

R

Ben

efits

(£m

)

Tot

al C

osts

£m

(Rev

ised

)

Skill

s, c

apab

ilitie

s

DEL

IVER

Y

CO

NFI

DEN

CE

Aim

s an

d Sc

ope

Bus

ines

s re

adin

ess

Gov

erna

nce

Proc

esse

s

Prog

ress

on

reco

mm

enda

tions

Dep

ende

ncie

s

RET

UR

N

STA

GE

Programme Review over 6 quarters’ returns - example

Nex

t Rev

iew

Last 2ReviewsE

nd D

ate

(Rev

ised

)

BASELINEBASELINE 161m 161m2500

(Yes)2500(Yes)

G(4)04/08G(4)04/08

G(2)12/06G(2)12/06

03/12(No)03/12(No)

Post Contract TBDTBD 575m 575m

G(0)03/07G(0)03/07

0809Q10809Q1 161m 161m2500

(Yes)2500(Yes)

G(0)09/08TBC

G(0)09/08TBC

G(3)05/08G(3)05/08

03/12(No)03/12(No)


G(4)05/08G(4)05/08

0809Q20809Q2 161m 161m2500

(Yes)2500(Yes)

G(0)12/08G(0)12/08

G(4)05/08G(4)05/08

03/12(No)03/12(No)


G(3)05/08G(3)05/08

0809Q30809Q3 161m 161m2500

(Yes)2500(Yes)

G(0)12/08G(0)12/08

G(4)05/08G(4)05/08

03/12(No)03/12(No)


G(3)05/08G(3)05/08

Post Contract

214m 214m2500(Yes)2500(Yes)

G(0)02/09

FR

G(0)02/09

FR

G(3)05/08

Capability prog

G(3)05/08

Capability prog

10/12(Yes)10/12(Yes)

TBDTBD 575m 575m

HC10/08

HC10/08

PostContract

179m 179m2500(Yes)2500(Yes)

TBDTBD10/12(Yes)10/12(Yes)

TBDTBD 583m 583m

HC10/08

HC10/08

G(0)02/09G(0)02/09

0809Q30809Q3

0910Q10910Q1


MPP - Emerging Themes

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

DELIVERYCONFIDENCE

AIMS ANDSCOPE

GOVERNANCE SKILLS ANDCAPABILITIES

PROCESSES DEPENDENCIES BUSINESSREADINESS

Green

Amber Green

Amber

Amber Red

Red

Less issues in Aims/Scope, Governance and ProcessesMore issues in Skills/Capabilities, Managing Dependencies and Business Readiness to change


Ten causes of confidence – A Preview!

1 Initial Assessment

2 Programme Leadership

3 Scope aims and benefits

4 Position within a Department

5 Managing the TCQ triangle

6 Assumptions, Risks, Issues

7 Skills and expertise

8 Stakeholders

9 Business models

10 Managing suppliers/ consultants

Getting off on the right foot

Having the right people

Defining the task appropriately

Knowing your environment

Keeping feet on the ground

Knowing what could go wrong

Having the right know-how

Appreciating who can help or harm you

Making it work for real

Getting through to the end


1 Initial Assessment

Following a major policy initiative or review, and before formal announcements are made or a delivery Programme started, time has been taken to conduct a comprehensive assessment to confirm:

– Overall deliverability within initial time and cost estimates

– Level of skills and expertise required

– Commitment of key partners and stakeholders

– Top level support from within the Department, and the priority within the department’s portfolio

Getting off on the right foot


1 Initial assessment - Questions

Has there been any form of comprehensive assessment (such as OGC’s Starting Gate or equivalent) of the deliverability of the Programme at initial start up?

If not, is there scope for taking time NOW to conduct such an assessment (such as a tailored Gateway Zero Review) to ensure the Programme is on the right tracks?

Have the initial Time Cost and Quality parameters been identified and what degree of flexibility there is within these.

If there are major concerns over any of these parameters, have these been relayed to Ministers and discussions held on adopting a more flexible approach until Business Cases are fully developed?


Thank You

Date post:	25-Dec-2015
Category:	Documents
Upload:	homer-skinner
View:	215 times
Download:	1 times

OGC Gateway ‘Brand News’ and information Phil Kemp Head of OGC Gateway™ Brand Assurance...

Documents