p3m3 Self Assessment Report 2012

P3M3TM Self Assessment Report

VERSION 1.0 | SEPTEMBER 2012

UNCLASSIFIED Page 2 of 27

Authorisation

Approvals

Name Organisation Signature & Date

Rosanne Frost Department of Finance and Deregulation

…………………………………… 27 September 2012

Distribution List

Name Position Group/Division

Jenet Connell Chief Operating Officer COOG

Stein Helgeby Deputy Secretary FMG

Cheryl-Ann Moy Assistant Secretary AMPS/M&PS

Anne Collins Assistant Secretary FMG/FRACMD

Paul Stokoe Assistant Secretary COOG/CIOD

Brett Quester Assistant Secretary COOG/CIOD

Tim Brunton Assistant Secretary COOG/CIOD

Director COOG/CIOD

Director, Transition COOG/CIOD

Transition Manager COOG/CIOD

Director, PMO COOG/CIOD

Assistant Director, PMO COOG/CIOD

Program Manager, PMO COOG/CIOD

Project Manager, PMO COOG/CIOD



Project Manager PMO COOG/CIOD


Project Officer, PMO COOG/CIOD

Project Officer, PMO COOG/CIOD


Revision History

Date Version Modified By Change History

07/09/2012 0.1 Draft Assistant Director IT Portfolio Management

Draft

17/09/2012 0.2 Draft Michael Chachaty Blue Visions Management Pty Ltd

Update to include interview information

20/09/2012 0.3 Draft Assistant Director IT Portfolio Management

Update to validate interview and evidence information

24/09/2012 0.4 Draft Michael Chachaty Blue Visions Management Pty Ltd

Review and Update

26/09/2012 1.0 Final Assistant Director IT Portfolio Management

Review, Update and make Final


Contents

Authorisation 2 Approvals 2 Distribution List 2 Revision History 3

Contents 4

P3M3TM Self Assessment Report 5 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5 2. SCOPE 8 2.1 Inclusions 8 2.2 Exclusions 8 2.3 Assessment Background 8 2.4 Assessment Approach 9 3. CURRENT P3M3TM RATINGS 10 3.1 Maturity Summary - 2012 10 3.2 Portfolio Management Maturity Summary 11 3.3 Programme Management Maturity Summary 14 3.4 Project Management Maturity Summary 17 4. RECOMMENDED P3M3 TM RATINGS 20 4.1 Portfolio Management – Target 2 Recommended 21 4.2 Programme Management – Target 2 Recommended 22 4.2 Project Management – Target 3 Recommended 23 5. APPENDIX A – P3M3 TM OVERVIEW 25


P3M3TM Self Assessment Report

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Department of Finance and Deregulation (DoFD) conducted a Self Assessment of the ICT enabled change portfolio. The self-assessment was supported by an Accredited Consulting Organisation (ACO) Blue Visions Management Pty Ltd (blueVisions).

The assessment was conducted in September 2012. The team comprised Amanda Finn (Assistant Director) Chief Information Office Division (CIOD) and Michael Chachaty (Director and Registered P3M3 Consultant at blueVisions).

The assessment included a review of 18 staff in various roles across the Project, Programme and Portfolio sub-models. The interview results were assessed together with documentary evidence to form a combined view of the P3M3TM maturity levels.

Chart 1: P3M3TM Results (2012 Results)

Portfolio Management Sub-Model Rated at Level 1

In 2012, the portfolio management maturity has been assessed at Level 1.

DoFD recognises the concept of portfolio management but there remains a lack of clearly documented and applied portfolio management processes. Portfolio governance is emerging, as is the focus on benefits management and resource management.

The following are notable improvements since the 2010 assessment findings:

• IT-Roadmap providing portfolio visibility, priority and alignment to strategy;

• Increased focus on measurable benefits management, particularly in the business context;

• Enhanced visibility and investment decisions including comparison of respective merits of initiatives competing for the single pool of funds;

• Stronger engagement of business stakeholders and awareness of business needs; and

• Right information detail enabling effective decision making across portfolio.

0

1

2

3

Portfolio Management

Programme Management

Project Management

1 1

2

P3M3TM Assessment



Project Management


Programme Management Sub-Model Rated at Level 1

In 2012, the programme management maturity has been assessed at Level 1.

DoFD recognises pockets of programme management, in particular M&PS and CBMSR but processes to control programme management are not yet consistently applied across the organisation. In addition, benefit tracking and realisation is currently focused at project level.


• Recent investment in the development of an organisational wide programme management framework aligned to best practice standards;

• Greater recognition and reporting at programme level, with consideration to inter-project dependencies and priorities within a programme;

• Review of benefits and their realisation to ensure alignment to strategy and business needs being driven by governance committees;

• Increasing awareness on programme wide investments and flexibility, through the governance channels to balance funding across projects in programme; and

• Improvement in understanding of business stakeholders and expectations.

Project Management Sub-Model Rated at Level 2

In 2012, the project management maturity has been assessed at Level 2.

Common control gates and understanding of project terminology exist however there remains an inconsistent definition of both detailed processes and templates applied across projects. Focus on project still at output or outcome level with limited attention to benefits realisation.


• DoFD has recently drafted a best practice project management framework, aligned to PRINCE2®;

• Reporting and governance standards are being applied more consistently across the organisation;

• Greater focus on benefit realisation in both technology and business context;

• Cost forecasting improving bringing more confidence in delivering to budgets;

• Risks monitoring and control becoming more active at both project and within governance framework; and

• Recent implementation of resource coordinators focused on increasing resource forward planning (forecasting) and utilisation.


Recommendations

The assessment team recommends:

Portfolio and Programme Management Level 2 maturity because

• Consistent framework for delivery of programmes will enable clarity and increase certainty in achieving desired change outcomes and benefits;

• Increase alignment to strategic objectives, including clearer understanding of the contribution initiatives made towards strategy;

• Increase overall transparency and speed in decision making across initiatives (programmes and projects) which will be key given current political and economic environment; and

• Provide greater clarity on resource requirements and prioritisation.

Project Management Level 3 maturity because

• Investment constraints will drive projects to deliver more for less;

• Individual application and interpretation of the framework has negative impacts on organisational governance and results in confusion across project teams and stakeholders involved in several projects;

• Support the increase in focus from outputs and outcomes to benefits; and

• To support effective programme and portfolio management, project management standards must be consistently applied across the organisation.

Capability Improvement Plan (CIP)

• The Portfolio Management Office (PMO) should review and update the CIP to ensure currency with this assessment; and

• When complete the CIP should be endorsed and funded by the Executive Board.

P3M3 Governance and Reporting

• Monthly monitoring, with quarterly executive reporting, of the P3M3 CIP Implementation progress and intended verses realised benefits;

• PMO accountability (with assigned individual) for driving the CIP

• Early preparation for The Secretaries ICT Governance Board (SIGB) P3M3 Assessments, with next one being due in 2014.

Note: Through the process of the self-assessment it was discovered that the roll-up of the results for programme management in 2010 had been done incorrectly and that the actual result for programme management should have been a level 1 not a level 2 as recorded.


2. SCOPE

2.1 Inclusions

The P3M3 self assessment covered the portfolio, programme and project activities across the CIOD for ICT enabled activities. This included sampling sufficient programmes and projects to create a representative sample set for the DoFD change portfolio; three programs1 and 10 projects. The work covered both ICT/CIO Division and business unit run projects and programs.

Programs included are:

• ICT Program;

• M&PS Program;

• CBMSR Program; and

• Various projects within these programs.

2.2 Exclusions

The following aspects of DoFD program/project management have been excluded from the self assessment:

• This assessment is limited to ICT capability delivered by the CIOD;

• Property & Construction Division facilities projects due to the construction specific management practices and fact they are not deemed to be ICT enabled, and

• DoFD Policy implementation initiatives on the basis that their dependency upon ICT is largely routine deployment and use of existing ICT infrastructure and applications; these initiatives are not dependent upon change in ICT.

2.3 Assessment Background

As part of the ICT Reform Agency Capability Initiative, the Government directed that agencies complete regular P3M3 assessments of their portfolio, program and project management capability, to compare their actual capability to their target capability, and report the results to Secretaries’ ICT Governance Board (SIGB) by 2 October 2012.

Agencies have the option of conducting a self-assessment or engaging a P3M3 Accredited Consulting Organisation (ACO). Note: Agencies bringing forward ICT Two Pass Review proposals must have their current capability independently validated by an ACO. At this time DoFD are in the position to conduct a self-assessment.

In January 2012, the SIGB decided that agencies would report the following information:

1 “Programs” are major DoFD initiatives (CBMS Redevelopment, Government Online and IT Services Branch development work)

which have been selected as representative for the P3M3 Programme Management sub-model. In this context a programme is

defined as “implementation of a set of related projects and activities in order to deliver outcomes and benefits related to DoFD’s

strategic objectives”.


1. Current P3M3 maturity levels for each of the three models, by process; assessment date; type; and scope.

2. If capability is not improving in line with target P3M3 maturity levels set in your agency’s Capability Improvement Plan (CIP), an explanation of the reasons.

3. If your agency revises its target P3M3 maturity levels, revised targets for each of the three models, by process; target date(s); date set; scope; and rationale.

4. Summary of performance against CIP milestones and any major slippage.

5. A copy of your agency’s current P3M3 assessment report and, if CIP revised, the revised executive-endorsed CIP and reasons for revision.

The purpose of this P3M3 Self Assessment is to:

• Undertake the P3M3 Self Assessment for the Department of Finance and Deregulation (DoFD) Information Communications and Technology (ICT) enabled initiatives for Portfolio, Programme and Project Management capability, to compare actual capability to target capability, and report the results to Secretaries’ ICT Governance Board’s (SIGB) September meeting; and

• Potentially, update the Capability Improvement Plan (CIP) for reaching the agreed target P3M3 Rating.

The assessment was conducted in accordance with the requirements DoFD has communicated to all FMA agencies following the recommendations in the Gershon Report that federal agencies improve their capability to commission, manage and realise benefits from projects.

2.4 Assessment Approach

The assessment approach included:

• Familiarisation and assessment of current documentation of management processes;

• Communication to interviewees on scope of review, in the form of the Self-Assessment Plan;

• Interviews with several individuals at project, programme and portfolio level to understand understanding and application of processes and tools. In addition, individuals were asked to comment on notable strengths and gaps. This included;

• Individuals in the roles of Portfolio Director and Investment Committee Member (Executive Board and ITGSC members);

• Individuals at the programme and project levels. These included Project board members, programme and project sponsors, project and project managers; and

• Individuals within the Portfolio Management Office staff.

• Each interview comprised of both DoFD representative (Amanda Finn) and blueVisions representative (Michael Chachaty);

• Review of documentation noted during the interviews and provided by the interviewees; and

• Consolidation of findings and assessment by both DoFD and blueVisions.

For this assessment DoFD’s entire scope of ICT-enabled change was treated as a single Portfolio.

All individual interviewee results will remain confidential.


3. CURRENT P3M3TM RATINGS

3.1 Maturity Summary - 2012

Sub-

Mod

el S

core

Man

agem

ent

Cont

rol

Bene

fits

Man

agem

ent

Fina

ncia

l M

anag

emen

tSt

akeh

olde

r M

anag

emen

t

Risk

Man

gem

ent

Org

anis

atio

nal

Gov

erna

nce

Reso

urce

M

anag

emen

t

Gen

eric

Att

ribut

es

Portfolio Management 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 1Programme Management 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 2Project Management 2 2 2 3 2 2 3 2 2

Process Perspectives

Table 1, P3M3TM Maturity Score 2012

Portfolio Management Sub-Model (Level 1)

Significant improvements in Portfolio Management controls and management over the past six months; including establishment of IT Roadmap, prioritisation of investments, strategic alignment and focus on benefits. Some aspects, including clearly defined portfolio management processes currently not well defined or applied.

Programme Management Sub-Model (Level 1)

DoFD recognises pockets of programme management with some documented control and resources. Recent investment has been made in the development of a programme management framework aligned to best practice standards (MSP®) but this is yet to be applied. Benefit tracking and realisation is currently focused at project level.

Project Management Sub-Model (Level 2)

DoFD has recently implemented a best practice project management framework, aligned to PRINCE2®. Application of the framework will bring together consistent processes, templates, tools and governance to support project delivery. This framework is in early stages of adoption.


3.2 Portfolio Management Maturity Summary

The summary below contains key observations noted during the review and associated ratings following the assessment process. The descriptions noted are based on the P3M3TM process perspectives and generic attributes.

Key Observations

In 2012, the portfolio management maturity has been assessed at Level 1.

DoFD recognises the concept of portfolio management but there remains a lack of clearly documented and applied portfolio management processes. Portfolio governance is emerging, as is the focus on benefits management and resource management.


• Establishment of the IT-Roadmap providing portfolio visibility, priority and alignment to strategy;

• Increased focus on measurable benefits management, particularly in the business context;

• Enhanced visibility and investment decisions including comparison of respective merits of initiatives competing for the single pool of funds;

• Stronger engagement of business stakeholders and awareness of business needs; and

• Right information detail enabling effective decision making across portfolio.

Chart 2: Portfolio Management – Sub Model (Level 1)

11

2

22

2

1

2

1

3

1

2

3

1

Management Control

Benefits Management

Financial Management

Stakeholder Management

Risk Management

Organisational Governance

Resource Management

Portfolio Management - Sub Model2012 Assessment 2010 Assessment



Process Description

Management Control

(Level 1)

The organisation recognises the portfolio but has little or nothing in terms of documented processes or standards for managing the portfolio.

Benefit Management

(Level 1)

There is some recognition that initiatives may exist within the organisational and divisional portfolio to enable the achievement of benefits for the organisation. However, there is no defined benefits realisation process.


(Level 2)

There are business cases produced and some, usually departmental, structures to oversee investment decisions. However, business cases are often appraised independently of each other and real organisational priorities have not been established.


(Level 2)

Portfolios will be communicated to stakeholders, but this is linked more to the personal initiative of portfolio manager(s) than to a structured approach deployed by the organisation.

Risk Management

(Level 2)

There is generally a top-down approach to risk identification, focusing on major organisational initiatives, but some initiatives are increasingly carrying out bottom-up risk identification. However, these approaches are inconsistent, not particularly interrelated and often do not address the actual management of risks.


(Level 2)

There are some attempts to recognise the portfolio of initiatives, but there is still little overall leadership and direction for the process.

Initiatives may be initiated and run without full regard to the organisational goals, priorities and targets.

Resource Management

(Level 1)

Portfolio resource requirements are recognised but not systematically managed. Resource allocation is ad hoc, with little, if any, profiling of resources to meet the resource requirements of specific initiatives.


0

1

2

3

4

5

Portfolio Management - Generic Attributes

2012 Assessment 2010 Assessment

Chart 3: Portfolio Management – Generic Attributes (Level 1)

Generic Attributes Generic Attributes Description

Roles & Responsibilities

(Level 1)

No standard roles, and responsibilities are not defined or are generic.

Experience in Portfolio Management

(Level 2)

Key individuals may have practical delivery experience and track record.

Capability Development

(Level 2)

Generic training may be provided in key concepts, and there may be individuals undertaking qualification training.

Local sharing of knowledge may exist but mostly ad hoc.

Planning & Estimating

(Level 2)

Plans exist but are not underpinned by consistent development methodology, yet may still be effective locally. Planning seen as activity tracking rather than proactive/forecasting. Estimation is more ‘guesstimation’ and does not use standard techniques.

Information & Documentation

(Level 2)

Focus on documentation during start-up and definition, but not maintained over initiative’s life cycle. Localised information structures, with some information sharing between teams.

Limited localised information controls, with no formal release management arrangements.

Scrutiny and Review

(Level 2)

Local reviews, with some corrective actions undertaken within the group.


11

2

22

2

1

2

2

2

22

2

2

Management Control

Benefits Management



Risk Management


Resource Management

Programme Management - Sub Model2012 Assessment 2010 Assessment

3.3 Programme Management Maturity Summary


Key Observations

In 2012, the programme management maturity has been assessed at Level 1.

DoFD recognises pockets of programme management, in particular M&PS and CBMS but processes to control programme management are not yet consistently applied across the organisation. In addition, benefit tracking and realisation is currently focused at project level.


• Recent investment in the development of a

• programme management framework aligned to best practice standards (MSP®);

• Greater recognition and reporting at programme level, with consideration to inter-project dependencies and priorities within a programme;

• Review of benefits and their realisation to ensure alignment to strategy and business needs being driven by governance committees;

• Increasing awareness on programme wide investments and flexibility, through the governance channels to balance funding across projects in programme; and

• Improvement in understanding of business stakeholders and expectations.

Chart 4: Programme Management – Sub Model (Level 1)



Process Description

Management Control

(Level 1)

Programme management terminology is used by some members of the organisation but not consistently, and possibly not understood by all stakeholders. Programmes are conducted and managed according to individual preferences.

Benefit Management

(Level 1)

There is some recognition that the concepts of benefits can be differentiated from programme outcomes.


(Level 2)

Programme business cases are produced in various forms and the better and more formal cases will present the rational on which to obtain organisational commitment to the programme.

Overall cost of the programme is not monitored or fully accounted for.


(Level 2)

Some programmes will be communicated to stakeholders, but this is linked more to the personal initiative of programme managers than to a structured approach being deployed by the organisation.

Risk Management

(Level 2)

Risk management is recognised and used on programmes, but there are inconsistent approaches which result in different levels of commitment and effectiveness.

Organisational Governance (Level 2)

Programme management from an organisational perspective is beginning to take shape but with ad hoc controls and no clear strategic control. Roles and responsibilities will be inconsistent, as will reporting lines.

Resource Management

(Level 1)

There is some recognition within the organisation of the need to manage resources effectively to enable successful delivery of programmes, but little evidence of resource acquisition, planning or management.


0

1

2

3

4

5

Programme Management - Generic Attributes


Chart 5: Programme Management – Generic Attributes (Level 2)



(Level 2)

Roles, responsibilities and competencies defined in some areas but not consistently across the organisation.


(Level 2)

Key individuals may have practical delivery experience and track record.


(Level 2)

Generic training may be provided in key concepts, and there may be individuals undertaking qualification training.

Local sharing of knowledge may exist but mostly ad hoc.


(Level 2)

Plans exist but are not underpinned by consistent development methodology, yet may still be effective locally. Planning seen as activity tracking rather than proactive/forecasting. Estimation is more ‘guesstimation’ and does not use standard techniques.


(Level 2)



Scrutiny and Review

(Level 2)



2

2

3

22

3

2

2

2

3

2

3

3

2

Management Control

Benefits Management


Stakeholder ManagementRisk Management


Resource Management

Project Management - Sub Model2012 Assessment 2010 Assessment

3.4 Project Management Maturity Summary


Key Observations

In 2012, the project management maturity has remained at Level 2.

Common control gates and understanding of project terminology exist however there remains an inconsistent definition of both detailed processes and templates applied across projects. Focus on project still at output or outcome level with limited attention to benefits realisation.


• DoFD has recently drafted a best practice project management framework, aligned to PRINCE2®;

• Reporting and governance standards are being applied more consistently across the organisation;

• Greater focus on benefit realisation in both technology and business context;

• Cost forecasting improving bringing more confidence in delivering to budgets;

• Risks monitoring and control becoming more active at both project and within governance framework; and

• Recent implementation of resource coordinators focused on increasing resource forward planning (forecasting) and utilisation.

Chart 6: Project Management – Sub Model (Level 2)



Process Description

Management Control

(Level 2)

The concepts of project management will have been grasped by the organisation, and there may be local experts, such as experienced project managers, working on key projects.

Benefit Management

(Level 2)

Benefits are recognised as an element within project business cases. There may be some documentation regarding who is responsible for particular benefits and their realisation, but this is unlikely to be followed through or consistent.


(Level 3)

There are centrally established standards for the preparation of business cases and processes for their management throughout the project life cycle. Project managers monitor costs and expenditure in accordance with organisational guidelines and procedures, with defined interfaces with other financial functions within the organisation.


(Level 2)

Projects will be communicated to stakeholders, but this is linked more to the personal initiative of project managers than to a structured approach being deployed by the organisation

Risk Management

(Level 2)

Risk management is recognised and used on projects, but there are inconsistent approaches, which result in different levels of commitment and effectiveness.


(Level 3)

Centrally defined organisational controls are applied consistently to all projects, with decision-making structures in place and linked to organisational governance

Resource Management

(Level 2)

Resources are being deployed across the organisation and individual projects have an approach to resource acquisition, planning or management. However there is little evidence of consistency of approach.


0

1

2

3

4

5

Project Management - Generic Attributes


Chart 7: Project Management – Generic Attributes (Level 2)



(Level 3)

Centrally managed role definitions and sets of competencies defined and used to secure appointments.


(Level 3)

Key individuals have practical delivery experience and track record.


(Level 2)

Generic training may be provided in key concepts, and there may be individuals undertaking qualification training. Local sharing of knowledge may exist but mostly ad hoc.


(Level 3)

Plans developed to a central and consistent standard that is output or goal based. Plan development takes into account a range of relevant factors. Evidence of effective estimating techniques.

Dependencies are identified, tracked and managed effectively.


(Level 2)



Scrutiny and Review

(Level 2)



4. RECOMMENDED P3M3 TM RATINGS

The assessment team recommends DoFD set the following maturity levels:

Portfolio and Programme Management (Level 2) because

• Consistent framework for delivery of programmes will enable clarity and increase certainty in achieving desired change outcomes and benefits;

• Increase alignment to strategic objectives, including clearer understanding of the contribution initiatives made towards strategy;

• Increase overall transparency and speed in decision making across initiatives (programmes and projects) which will be key given current political and economic environment;

• Provide greater clarity on resource requirements and prioritisation;

Project Management (Level 3) because

• Investment constraints will force projects to deliver more for less;

• Individual application and interpretation of the framework has negative impacts on organisational governance and results in confusion across project teams and stakeholders involved in several projects;

• Support the increase in focus from outputs and outcomes to benefits; and

• To support effective programme and portfolio management, project management standards must be consistently applied across the organisation.


4.1 Portfolio Management – Target 2 Recommended

The information below summarises the assessment team’s recommendation for target maturity level across both the process perspectives and generic attributes. Where the level is already attained, it has been excluded from the details below.

Process Perspective

Current Level Target Level

Management Control (Level 1) The organisation recognises the portfolio but has little or nothing in terms of documented processes or standards for managing the portfolio.

Management Control (Level 2)

Establish, documented and consistently apply the portfolio management processes, and interfaces to organisational systems across the department. Ensure processes are aligned with and accepted by business stakeholders, in addition to ICT team.

Benefit Management (Level 1) There is some recognition that the concepts of benefits can be differentiated from programme outcomes.

Benefit Management (Level 2)

Investment cycle will place strong emphasis on the definition and agreement of expected benefits. This will support the decision making between initiatives. In addition, the portfolio management team will commence an active role in driving the realisation of benefits across the portfolio.

Resource Management (Level 1) There is some recognition within the organisation of the need to manage resources effectively to enable successful delivery of programmes, but little evidence of resource acquisition, planning or management.

Resource Management (Level 2)

The organization has started to develop portfolio resource management processes and improve the identification and allocation of resources to specific initiatives.

Resource allocation is starting to assess the impact of resource allocation against the strategic objectives and priorities.

Generic Attribute


Roles & Responsibilities (Level 1) No standard roles, and responsibilities are not defined or are generic

Roles & Responsibilities (Level 2)

Roles, responsibilities and competencies defined in those involved in portfolio management across the department


4.2 Programme Management – Target 2 Recommended


Process Perspective


Management Control (Level 1) Programme management terminology is used by some members of the organisation but not consistently, and possibly not understood by all stakeholders. Programmes are conducted and managed according to individual preferences.


Documented and consistently applied programme management processes that link to both project and portfolio management and contain interfaces to organisational systems.

Language and applied consistent across the department. Management controls exist to oversee and direct a programme (as opposed to a number of individual projects managed mainly independently of each other).

Benefit Management (Level 1) There is some recognition that the concepts of benefits can be differentiated from programme outcomes.


Programme level business cases are developed with Benefits being recognized as a key element.

Benefits have a clear responsible ownership and decision making across the programme actively takes benefits into consideration

Resource Management (Level 1) There is some recognition within the organisation of the need to manage resources effectively to enable successful delivery of programmes, but little evidence of resource acquisition, planning or management.


Resources are being deployed across the organization and individual programmes have an approach to resource acquisition, planning or management.

Programme managers have some discretion to balance / shuffle resources across the programme to maximise program outcomes and associated benefits

Generic Attribute


All at Level 2 currently


4.2 Project Management – Target 3 Recommended


Process Perspective



The concepts of project management will have been grasped by the organization, and there may be local experts, such as experienced project managers, working on key projects.


There is a centrally defined and documented approach to a project management life cycle and controls, and it is applied in all projects by capable staff that supports project teams.

The project management lifecycle integrates well into other methodologies (Programme and Portfolio), is well understood and applied.


Benefits are recognized as an element within project business cases. There may be some documentation regarding who is responsible for particular benefits and their realization, but this is unlikely to be followed through or consistent.


There is a centrally managed and consistent framework for defining and tracking the realization of benefits from project outputs. Reporting will include information on the realisation of benefits and associated learning for future projects.

Stakeholder Management (Level 2)

Projects will be communicated to stakeholders, but this is linked more to the personal initiative of project managers than to a structured approach being deployed by the organization.

Stakeholder Management (Level 3)

There is a centrally managed and consistent approach to stakeholder engagement and communications used by all projects.

Appropriate guidance is provided to project managers on stakeholder identification, analysis and engagement.

Risk Management (Level 2)

Risk management is recognized and used on projects, but there are inconsistent approaches, which result in different levels of commitment and effectiveness.

Risk Management (Level 3)

Project risk management is based on a centrally defined process that is cognizant of the organization’s policy for the management of risks and is used consistently.

Risk management is an active part of the


project delivery toolkit with clearly defined ownership and accountability.


Resources are being deployed across the organization and individual projects have an approach to resource acquisition, planning or management. However there is little evidence of consistency of approach.


The organization has a centrally defined and adopted set of procedures and management processes for acquiring, planning and managing project resources.

Forecast of resources is understood, proactively communicated and allocation is based on priority and assessment of project impact (associated with shifting resources)

Generic Attribute


Capability Development (Level 2)

Generic training may be provided in key concepts, and there may be individuals undertaking qualification training. Local sharing of knowledge may exist but mostly ad hoc

Capability Development (Level 3)

Training is focused on the organization’s approaches and raising competence of individuals in specific roles. Forums exist for sharing organizational experience to improve individual and organizational performance

Information & Documentation (Level 2)

Focus on documentation during start-up and definition, but not maintained over initiative’s life cycle. Localized information structures, with some information sharing between teams. Limited localized information controls, with no formal release management arrangements

Information & Documentation (Level 3)

Information has a refresh cycle or is regularly accessed. Organization-wide information standards on confidentiality, availability and integrity. Formal information release management procedures.

Consistency exists in the storage, integrity and retrieval of project information.

Scrutiny and Review (Level 2)

Local reviews, with some corrective actions undertaken within the group

Scrutiny and Review (Level 3)

Independent reviews take place, which are geared towards both compliance and opportunities for improvement.


5. APPENDIX A – P3M3 TM OVERVIEW

P3M3™ is an overarching model containing three sub-models, Portfolio Management Maturity Model (PfM3), Programme Management Maturity Model (PgM3) and Project Management Maturity Model (PjM3);

For each of the three sub-models (Portfolio Management, Programme Management and Project Management) P3M3 examines up to 7 different process perspectives. Within each perspective 5 levels are used to describe P3M3 maturity, these levels can be applied independently within each model, or across all three to assess overall P3M3 maturity.

3 Sub-models


The totality of an organisation’s investment (or a segment thereof) in the changes required to achieve its strategic objectives. Portfolio Management describes the management of an organisations portfolio of business change initiatives.


Programmes exist to manage the complexities involved in delivering beneficial change. Programme Management is focussed on the areas of tension between strategic direction, project delivery and operational effectiveness.

Project Management

A project is a unique set of coordinated activities, with definite starting and finishing points, undertaken by an individual or team to meet specific objectives within defined time, cost and performance parameters as specified in the business case. Project Management guides a project through a visible set of activities, from controlled start-up, through delivery, to controlled closure, and review.


The 7 Process Perspectives:

1. Management Control

This covers the internal controls of the initiative and how direction is maintained throughout its life cycle, with appropriate break points to enable it to be stopped or redirected by a controlling body if necessary. Best practice is characterised by clear evidence of leadership and direction, scope, stages, tranches and review processes during the course of the initiative.

2. Benefits Management

This ensures the desired business outcomes are clearly defined, measurable and ultimately delivered through a structured approach. Best practice recommends that benefits are assessed and approved by the organisational areas that will deliver them. Benefit dependencies and other requirements should be clearly defined, and understanding gained on how the initiative’s outputs will deliver the benefits.

3. Financial Management

This ensures that likely costs are captured and evaluated in a formal business case and are categorised and managed over the investment life cycle. There should be appropriate involvement from the organisation’s financial functions, with approvals being embedded in the broader organisational hierarchy. Best practice suggests that a business case should define the value of the initiative to the business and contain a financial appraisal of the possible options.

4. Stakeholder Management

Best practice suggests that both internal and external stakeholders are analysed and engaged in order to achieve the initiative’s objectives. Stakeholder Management includes communications planning, the effective identification and use of different communications channels, and techniques to enable objectives to be achieved.

5. Risk Management

This views the way in which the organisation manages threats to, and opportunities presented by, the initiative. Risk Management maintains a balance of focus on threats and opportunities, with appropriate management actions to reduce or eliminate the likelihood/impact of any identified threat.

6. Organisational Governance

This looks at how the delivery of initiatives is aligned to the organisation’s strategic direction, including start-up, closure and during the initiative’s lifecycle. This perspective looks at how the impact of external factors might be controlled/mitigated, as opposed to Management Control, which considers how internal control is maintained.

7. Resource Management

This covers management of all resources required for delivery, including human resources, buildings, equipment, supplies, information, tools and supporting teams. A key element is the process for acquiring resources and how supply chains are utilised to maximise their effective use. In best practice there will be evidence of capacity planning and prioritisation to enable effective resource management.


The 5 Maturity Levels:

Maturity Level 1 - Awareness of Process

Processes are not usually documented, actual practice is determined by events or individual preferences, and performance is variable. Successful initiatives are often based on key individuals’ competencies rather than organisation-wide capability and past successes cannot be repeated consistently. Processes are undeveloped or incomplete. There is little or no guidance or supporting documentation and even terminology may not be standardised.

Maturity Level 2 - Repeatable Processes

Basic management practices, e.g. tracking expenditure and scheduling resources, are in place and being improved. Key individuals are trained and demonstrate a successful track record and through them, the organisation is capable of repeating success. Initiatives are performed and managed according to their documented plans; project status and delivery is visible to management at defined points. There may still be inadequate measures of success; unclear responsibilities; ambiguity/inconsistency in business objectives; unintegrated Risk Management; limited Change Management; and inadequacies in communications strategy.

Maturity Level 3 – Defined Processes

Management and technical processes are documented, standardised and integrated to some extent with business processes. There is some process ownership and a group responsible for maintaining consistency and delivering process improvements. Senior management are engaged consistently, providing active and informed support. There is an established training programme to develop individual’s skills and knowledge.

Maturity Level 4 – Managed Processes

The organisation has defined processes that are quantitatively managed, i.e. controlled using metrics. There are quantitative objectives for quality and process performance, and these are being used in managing processes. Top management are proactively seeking out innovative ways to achieve goals. Using metrics, management can effectively control processes and identify ways to adjust and adapt them to particular initiatives without loss of quality.

Maturity Level 5 – Optimised Processes

There is focus on optimisation of quantitatively managed processes to account for changing business needs. The organisation exhibits continuous process improvement, and can show strong alignment of organisational objectives with business plans. Top managers are seen as exemplars, reinforcing the need and potential for capability and performance improvement. Information from process and product metrics enables the organisation to understand causes of variation and to optimise its performance.

Date post:	15-Jan-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	yapmarcel
View:	28 times
Download:	3 times

p3m3 Self Assessment Report 2012

Documents