CERA s Programme Management Office

Transcription

1 CERA s Programme Management Office Published 18 April 2016 Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority The Government established the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (CERA) in March 2011 to lead and coordinate the on-going recovery effort after the major earthquakes of September 2010 and February 2011 in greater Christchurch. To support this role, CERA established its Programme Management Office (PMO) to set up a suitable framework, methodology, reporting and governance structure to help manage and deliver its many programmes. The PMO was established in August 2011 after a public tender process was won by a consultancy group. Portfolio, programme and project framework The PMO had to establish programme and project controls while emergency response was in full swing and at a time when a strategic direction had not yet been set for the organisation. To enable this, the Senior Leadership Team (SLT) approved the PMO recommendation to establish a programme and project oriented organisation. A portfolio, programme and project (PPP) framework was a logical way to structure the work that CERA was already delivering and would continue to deliver over its lifespan. The six recovery components identified in the Recovery Strategy for Greater Christchurch (Recovery Strategy) were ideal portfolio groupings for CERA s work programme. At CERA s peak, the six portfolios were made up of 24 programmes and 137 projects. 1

2 Strategy Strategic objectives which are documented in the Recovery Strategy for Greater Christchurch CERA s components of recovery: Economic, Social, Natural, Cultural, Built, Community Each component of recovery has a specific strategic objective or goal Portfolios A group of programmes primarily focused on the delivery of strategic goals Translates the six components of recovery into tangible initiatives, or Portfolios CERA s portfolios: Economic, Social, Natural, Cultural, Built, Leadership and Integration Programmes A group of large scale, complex projects managed together, due to their strong links and dependencies, to deliver objectives A coordinated approach ensuring consistent management, no overlaps or gaps Must follow CERA s mandated five step lifecycle approach Initiation, Definition, Planning, Execution, Close-out Projects Individual efforts executing a set of activities to deliver specific outputs Have a start and end date; a finite life Must follow CERA s mandated five step lifecycle approach Initiation, Definition, Planning, Execution, Close-out The framework and model were consistent with best practice for the successful delivery of a broad, but interrelated, set of outcomes. In CERA s case, a large majority of those outcomes all related to the successful delivery of the Recovery Strategy. Programme and project lifecycle Drawing its methodology from Projects in Controlled Environments (PRINCE2) and the Project Management Book of Knowledge (PMBOK), the PMO adopted a five-phase lifecycle over which each programme and project was to deliver its outcomes. Each programme or project had to develop key documents at the beginning or end of each of its phases. As an example, at the end of phase 3 [the planning phase] a completed Implementation Plan was required. After the sponsor approved that document and then the governance group in CERA s case, the Programme Management Steering Committee (PMSC) considered it, the programme or project would move into the next phase. In a disaster response environment, a key challenge was that projects had very little or no formalised planning before they started. This was a direct result of the fact that CERA was in an emergency response phase working at pace, the organisation was lean, the workload was significant and intense, and time pressures were high. Staff had a genuine desire to just get on with it and to do the work needed to support and deliver recovery. Key documents were not always completed or approved before the project moved through the delivery lifecycle. From time to time, this did result in missed milestones, changes in scope, and unclear expectations for project teams and stakeholders. 2

3 Recovery programmes Deliver, Enable, Support As the leader and coordinator of recovery, CERA had to keep an overview of all recovery programmes underway. With SLT agreement, the PMO introduced a model to help CERA prioritise and resource the different types of work involved, and labelled its programmes and projects as Deliver, Enable or Support. With delivering programmes of work, CERA was responsible for leading them and was accountable for the budget. With enabling programmes of work, CERA was partially responsible for leading them and/or was accountable for part of the budget. With supporting programmes of work, other organisations were leading them, but CERA was responsible for making sure the programmes were consistent with the Recovery Strategy and for bringing a strategic, all of recovery view to the individual programmes. Categories CERA Delivering CERA Enabling CERA Supporting Programmes and projects that CERA is responsible for leading and/or is the budget owner. Programmes and projects that CERA is partially responsible for leading and/or is the partial budget owner. Programmes and projects that CERA is not responsible for leading and not the budget owner. Criteria These programmes have: These programmes have: These programmes have: - Key, externally communicated milestones - Strong interest from Public and Government - Significant budget - Significant resourcing - Minimal externally communicated milestones - Some interest from Public and Government - Led externally - Monitored by CERA CERA helps resolve issues impeding delivery, and ensures alignment with other programmes. Embedding the PMO and project management framework within CERA In October 2011, the PMO released a programme and project management manual, outlining the framework, tools and processes for programme managers to use to ensure programmes and projects were undertaken in a consistent way. Not all staff had a government background or had worked in a PMO environment before and there was little time to get up to speed and understand how it worked. Consequently, the manual was not well embedded across the organisation until a refresh and focused roll-out occurred in The PMO had to be established very quickly in an organisation which was new and evolving. Some felt that the PMO framework was too mature for a new organisation like CERA. The ideal model of project and programme delivery is not something that you can just impart into an immature organisation and expect compliance and adherence and the cogs of the machine to go around seamlessly. In the early stages of CERA, the PMO needed to stay close to leaders and recognise their different operating styles so that it could understand where it could add value. As CERA evolved the Senior Leadership Team (SLT) requested more formality around processes. The PMO responded by implementing robust programme and project controls. In 2012, the Recovery Strategy Planning and Policy team, together with the PMO, developed a Recovery Programme Guidance document. The purpose of this guide was to ensure programmes followed a consistent methodology, were integrated with other programmes and were consistent with the Recovery Strategy. 3

4 By this stage, a range of tools had also been developed internal reporting, weekly status updates to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery, programme concept papers and project briefs. CERA management requested information around timelines, deliverables, funding and capacity and some programme managers felt that they were providing the same information in a range of different tools. It remained difficult to put robust structures and timelines into programmes because CERA s work was constantly moving and shifting. In 2013 the Senior Leadership Team mandated and promoted the PMO s model and processes with the result that CERA s activities became more integrated. Programme Managers were held accountable for completing programme concept papers and project briefs and for providing accurate and timely reports. Across CERA, staff became significantly more engaged with and gained a better understanding of the PMO s role and function. Programme offices I ve seen fail time and time again because they lack executive sponsorship or ownership of the accountability at a governance level. My piece of advice for anyone setting up a programme office is to initially make sure it s right-sized for the organisation and it s doing the right things and, secondly, if you haven t got top-down executive sponsorship for it, don t bother. Establishing the Programme Management Steering Committee In 2013, the PMSC was established to oversee and manage the delivery of CERA s work programme. The PMSC was comprised of all programme managers (General Manager level) from across CERA. It reported formally on progress each month to the Senior Leadership Team through a consolidated report. The PMSC was an effective way to share information across the organisation, with its helicopter view across all programmes. Its meetings provided programme managers with an opportunity to talk about dependencies, themes and issues that were arising, and to provide key programme updates. In early 2014, the PMO focused on meeting with programme managers, developing a detailed programme and project inventory, bringing templates and processes up to date and working directly with different programme areas. The Risk and Assurance team In 2012, the Risk and Assurance (R&A) team was set up within the Finance team to undertake risk management. The R&A team facilitated risk workshops to capture risk information and provided advice and training on risk management across all areas of CERA. Typically, risk and issue functions are carried out together. As the PMO was responsible for the issue management process, this separation created difficulties with reporting. Risks 1 You can t really separate them: you ve got a risk, it becomes an issue, the issue gets dealt with, it goes back to being a risk and yet we ve got two different teams reporting on them so there wasn t that synergy. In the beginning, risk management at the programme and project level was often seen as a compliance exercise. Effort was made to shift the risk management culture so that managers took ownership of their risks. Strategic risks were managed at the SLT level. A document known as CERA s Top 10 Risks was updated on a quarterly basis by incorporating a risk session into the SLT strategy days. 1 A risk is an event that has not yet occurred but that could have a negative effect on project objectives if it were to occur. 4

5 Due to the diversity of work, it was difficult to have one refined risk management framework. A senior risk advisor recommends having a flexible approach. For example, where CERA was leading a programme that had high time pressures, changing priorities and ministerial involvement, the senior risk advisor had to be more closely involved to ensure accurate information was reported. In other cases, this wasn t necessary. An Audit and Risk Committee (ARC) was established with three independent professional directors to act as advisors to the Chief Executive. They met quarterly and were responsible for endorsing CERA s financial accounts and recommending for chief executive approval. Issues 2 Although issue registers were made available to programmes early on, they were not being used. In 2014, the PMO developed an issue management process and agreed with the R&A team to cover issues at risk workshops. Through this approach, new issues were identified and suitable actions were taken to resolve them. The PMO also introduced a combined register to record both risks and issues in a more streamlined process. Structure of the PMO and skills required The size and structure of the PMO changed a lot over CERA s lifespan. In 2011, CERA brought in external consultants with specialist skills in cost control, planning, reporting and scheduling. During the immediate response phase, some of these skills were useful and some were not because CERA was not yet delivering a large capital works programme. Over the next two years, as the PMO continued to evolve, the roles transferred from external consultants to CERA employees until, in 2014, CERA was leading the PMO with its own staff. From this time, the team remained a manageable size with a PMO manager, senior advisors, advisors, a reporting advisor and a programme support advisor. Programme coordinators were also working in programmes across the organisation. They were responsible for reporting and for supporting the programme managers in developing documentation. In this way, they performed a helpful role to the PMO as the key liaison point between the PMO and recovery programme managers. In some cases, other staff in programmes were also heavily involved in producing documentation and reporting. Christchurch Central Development Unit Programme Support Office In 2012, the Government established the Christchurch Central Development Unit (CCDU) as part of CERA, with the specific role of leading the recovery of the central city. When CERA was set up, it wasn t envisaged that it would manage a large capital works programme. However, in 2014 the CCDU needed additional resources and the right skills to drive and manage the anchor projects. In September 2014, the CCDU Programme Support Office was set up with the appropriate skills, processes, systems and experience to enable best-practice, construction-focused programme management. Its mixed resourcing model used existing CERA resource, heavily supported by external consultants. The PMO s helicopter view across all recovery programmes included the anchor projects. Its reporting requirements to the Senior Leadership Team were integrated with those of the CCDU. A summary of CERA s programme of work including its key achievements and milestones from April 2011 to April 2016 is available on the 2 An issue is an event that has already occurred and that is delaying the project, increasing its cost or impacting on its quality, or is affecting the overall delivery of the programme or project. 5

6 Lessons identified about a Programme Management Office Outlined below are important lessons identified from CERA s experience over its five-year existence. Every disaster and recovery organisation is different: the first decision is whether or not a PMO is necessary in the particular circumstances and, if so, whether it should be a separate function or part of an existing function. In CERA s case, having a standard PMO framework in a new disaster recovery organisation was a key challenge. It was difficult to apply a one size fits all framework across the many CERA programmes. It was challenging for supporting programmes as they had no control over budget and milestones, which caused frustration for project staff. Flexibility was necessary for these programmes so in 2014 the PMO modified documentation requirements to meet the needs of support programmes. When setting up a PMO in a disaster recovery organisation, the following provides a range of questions and guidelines to consider based on CERA s identified PMO lessons. Systems and processes What is the type of PMO needed? A corporate/reporting management office is different to a field delivery management office and may require different skills. Set up the PMO as soon as practical to establish a clear and consistent framework including methodology, governance, reporting, processes and templates. Ensure that the PMO has a good understanding of what the recovery organisation is tasked to do. As the role of the recovery organisation evolves including its activities a PMO can support change. Use existing project management tools from government agencies and recovery organisations but recognise that any disaster recovery environment is complex and a one size fits all model and approach will need to be tailored. Have a PMO that supports both risk and issue management. These functions should not be separated. Think about whether the PMO will need a finance function to track programme and project costs. Having accurate project costs will help manage programmes and projects effectively. As the recovery organisation evolves, think about whether the PMO is evolving with it. Templates and processes need to be the right fit for the organisation s level of maturity. A programme that has low risk and low cost does not need the same level of project management as a programme that has high risk, high costs and demanding timeframes. Programme management skills Resource the PMO with appropriately skilled and experienced staff, including people with: o a thorough understanding of portfolio, programme and project management and the ability to implement disciplines such as risk management and scheduling o strong analytical skills and experience in capturing and interpreting data o communications and relationship management skills if an organisation includes non-believers in the PMO system, they need to be brought along on the journey and shown its value o specialist skills in cost control, planning, reporting and scheduling, particularly if the recovery organisation is managing a large capital programme o experience in relevant projects for example, in construction and infrastructure projects for those working in demolitions and operations. 6

7 Consider embedding PMO staff in programme and project teams to provide targeted support. Have a training plan in place. People joining the recovery organisation might be subject matter experts but not experienced in project management. Communications Having a strong sponsor and support from the chief executive and senior leadership team is critical. It is important that senior leaders advocate for the PMO and all staff understand the value it adds. Consider holding regular meetings with those in coordinator/support roles to share information. These people can be the glue for their programmes and projects and the link between the PMO and recovery programme managers. Have communication channels in place to provide projects with the same level of information as programmes. CERA s PMO was initially more focused on programmes but better visibility and control was needed for the projects as well. Establish high-level commitment from, and accountabilities to, senior leaders. 7