1 / 21

Project Status Reviews

Project Status Reviews. APM SWWE Event, 31/01/2012 Pete Ricketts FAPM Babcock Marine, Technology, Systems & Equipment. How can we have confidence that a project is on track to deliver the agreed outcome?

hartwell-carl
Download Presentation

Project Status Reviews

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Project Status Reviews APM SWWE Event, 31/01/2012 Pete Ricketts FAPM Babcock Marine, Technology, Systems & Equipment

  2. How can we have confidence that a project is on track to deliver the agreed outcome? • Can this confidence be gained by just looking at the project managers monthly report, or should we be delving deeper? • This session will provide an overview of the process in use at Babcock to enable those present to understand how this might be implemented within their own organisation.

  3. Agenda What we do at Babcock S&E, Bristol Assurance Review process Results of reviews Overall findings Questions

  4. Status Review Process

  5. Background to implementation • The process was developed on the back of a detailed review of a project. • Process was then documented and trials undertaken. • The trials threw up interesting results…. • So we’ve carried on doing the reviews.

  6. Different to Quality Reviews

  7. Review Process – in 3 Parts • Undertaken in three (1.5hr sessions) and examines evidence that; • The project manager understands what he needs to do, • He has a plan for doing it, • Reviews where the project is against the plan. • Ten assessment areas within each part. • No preparation required by the PM

  8. Review Process (con’t) • The reviews look in detail at whether good project management practice is being applied. • Based on the evidence seen, apply a “score” to each of the ten areas reviewed. • Enables a view of whether the project is likely to be delivered successfully (or can identify early warning signs). • Is an opportunity to mentor and share good practice across the teams.

  9. Scope of review areas – sample questions 1) Evidence that Technical Requirements are clearly defined, understood and disseminated? 2) Evidence that Scope of Supply is clearly defined and understood, including Hardware, Documentation, Test Equipment? 3) Evidence that the Acceptance Events are clearly defined, understood and disseminated? 4) etc

  10. Scoring based on Evidence No Evidence • As it suggests, no meaningful evidence supporting the matter in question. Some Evidence • Some evidence indicating an attempt to address the matter in question, but a long way short of fully satisfying the assessment criteria. Clear Evidence • Evidence that indicates a good endeavour to address the matter in question, but some minor shortfalls observed. Full Evidence • Evidence that fully satisfies the assessment criteria.

  11. Results Captured and Recorded. • Projects are scored and results plotted. No Evidence 10% Some Evidence 40% Clear Evidence 70% Full Evidence 100% Some criteria not scored 0%

  12. Part 1, Understanding of Requirements 6) Interfaces 7) Quality Requirements 8) Packaging Requirements 9) Security Requirements 10) Export Licence 1) Technical Requirements 2) Scope of Supply 3) Acceptance Events 4) Terms and Conditions 5) Delivery Dates

  13. Part 2, Evidence of project planning 1) Project schedule 2) WBS, PBS 3) Budgets 4) Task instructions 5) Procurement plan 6) Manufacture, Assy and Test plan 7) Risk Register & Plan 8) Dates align with Contract dates 9) Key Event Milestones 10) Resource plan.

  14. Part 3, Progress against the Plan 1) Project progress 2) Confidence in dates 3) Logical critical path 4) Metrics/KPIs in place 5) Budgets not exceeded 6) Risks being managed 7) Risks reviewed 8) Sub-contractor management 9) Technical issues being managed 10) Overall confidence in meeting contract

  15. Results of Reviews, sample

  16. Part 1, 1 Results UID 243121

  17. Overall Findings

  18. Findings, Process • Process in place for 12+ months, now accepted. • Process also used/initiated where Senior Management has sensed problems in a project. • Approach by Reviewer(s) influences the success/ benefits of the review. • Constructive not critical approach is key • A platform for PM’s to be very open • Is an opportunity to coach and share experiences. • Assistance in the resolution of issues

  19. Findings, Results • Has identified instances/areas where PM needed support – that otherwise may not been identified. • Where low scores seen, opportunities to improve how project is run have been proposed. • Has seen PM’s increase their skill level / performance. • Not in anyone’s interest to over score or hold anything back. • Health Warning – Technical matters not reviewed

  20. Conclusion • The process has demonstrated to be beneficial and will continue. • Are currently involving more Reviewers • So that the process gets further embedded • And they get an opportunity to see other projects. • Beginning to see more consistency • But doesn’t prevent some projects from struggling

  21. Any Questions?

More Related