1 / 21

Strategic Co-ordination Group meeting Setting up of a project management tool

A draft agenda for the Strategic Coordination Group meeting outlining project background, goals, steps, tool structure, and challenges faced for effective management of guidance development.

Download Presentation

Strategic Co-ordination Group meeting Setting up of a project management tool

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. Strategic Co-ordination Group meeting Setting up of a project management tool November 27th, 2001 Brussels DRAFT

  2. Background and status of the project • The management system / tool • Findings from the interviews • Possible next steps

  3. Objectives of the project • To ensure transparent management of the guidance development process • Through: • Supporting the development of an overall work • programme based on the individual programmes • Setting up a project management system tool using • Microsoft Project in order to follow up and coordinate: • timetables, • milestones and deliveries • critical paths, • links among the different activities and projects.

  4. Project resources • ICWS (International Centre for Water Studies) • Jan Dogterom – project leader • Josine Kelling • Yegor Volovik • DHV • Liesbeth Verbeek • With support of the Working Groups • In co-operation with the Water Framework Directive team

  5. Project steps • Organise individual work programmes in Microsoft Project • Discuss individual programmes with the WGs • Adapt work programmes and conclude discussions • Draft overall programme, analyse activities in relation to WFD • Discuss findings with the SCG • Develop the management tool • Write user manual and train users

  6. The management system • Allows to view the work programme(s) via internet (Web based) • Provides a data entry tool, which allows entering project data via ‘Microsoft Project’ (software) • Allows for management of data of the individual and overall work programmes (timetables, deliverables, links) by one or more persons • Technical / logistical assistance has to be provided • Will be linked to CIRCA

  7. Commission/EU Programme administrater Internet browser MSProject Strategic Coord.Group Project Management Tool Internet browser Proposed conceptual Structure WFD- management tool Web based Shell programme Working Groups Internet browser MSProject -optional

  8. Proposed File Structure Individual projects’ files – 9 2.1 IMPRESS 3.1 GIS 2.2 HMWB 2.9 PROCLAN 2.3 REFCON Integrated file - 1 Integrated Project, includes all WG Projects Inter- dependent project files – N Cross-Links 2.1 – 2.3 Cross-Links 2.9 – 3.1

  9. Remarks on the management tool • Most chairmen see a need for and can picture benefits in developing the tool, but it should not add to their tasks • Chairmen prefere to: • send in corrections on individual programmes to a specific • person (possibly linked to the production of progress reports). • work separatelyon their own programme (those who are • familiar with MSProject). • There is a clear need for an overall programme manager to: • update overall work programme technically, • keep track of changes, • contact and stimulate groups.

  10. Working Group activities • The planning of the working group activities is informal and organised ad-hoc (how does this relate to the objectives of the project?) • The groups tend to develop guidance solitary due to the different projects starting dates, a lack in overview of activities within the broader context (e.g. general knowledge operational RBMP steps). • The individual programmes differ in detail as a result of e.g. the starting dates • The voluntary basis and lack of financial support of some projects creates ambiguity with regard to commitment of members and work that has to be delivered. • Groups mention the need for extra support from the EU to the • project leaders.

  11. Interrelationship of projects • Consistency is needed with regard to: • the use of common definitions and terms; particularly • on ‘scale’ and ‘water bodies’ (used differently in groups), • the scope of WG tasks (e.g. the extent of guidance; is • public participation included in the guidance or not?) • a common approach to cross boundary issues. • The role of the Integrated River Basin Pilot needs to be re -evaluated and its role optimised. For instance: • WG 2.9 needs the outcome of WG 4.1 in order to • finalise the manual and, therefore, cannot finish within • the required time. • Other groups cannot make use of the pilot as these are • finished earlier ……to be continued

  12. Continued - Interrelationship of projects • CIRCA is mentioned as a useful tool to exchange • information, but support is too slow. Information of groups is • incomplete and information is outdated. Giving more people • access could possibly help. • A simple theoretical framework of the content of the WFD • needs improvement. Therefore, it is not clear whether all • WFD requirements receive enough attention (table 1). • Overall project data such as, linkages, milestones and • deliverables are not yet fully developed. Umbrella activities • are or not visible. • The need for a forum was mentioned in order to visualise • content links and to establish these in time.

  13. Status of linkages • There is a deviating understanding between groups of the • term ‘link’ (content and time) • Most tangible links are through meetings and workshops or • persons in the working groups • The marked links are not always conform the links • mentionedin information sheets (old sheets, priorities ?) • Not all groups mark the same links to each other (table 2)

  14. Table 1: WG activities in relation to the WFD requirements Covered by WG Uncertain if covered by WG • Is there guidance on legal issues (adaptations of regulations in Member States)?

  15. Table 2: Linkages defined during the interviews(apart from linkages established through WG-members) Working group Link mentioned with: Established through meetings & workshops Mentioned, but not tangible No link defined ? Discussed whether link is needed *input of all other groups needed in later stage – development of manual. ** information only from information sheets; not interviewed I Link mentioned in information sheet

  16. Finalisation of guidance documents • Understanding between groups differs with regard to: • Procedures for integration and fine-tuning of guidance documents • (e.g. a common interpretation of the WFD/descriptions, otherwise • repetition is to occur). • Procedures for updating of guidance (e.g. as a result of the outcome • of other documents, the pilot etc.) • The role of the water directors in the finalisation of guidance • (endorsement)

  17. Conclusions Synchronisation of projects A common ‘finalisation strategy’ of guidance documents An overall concept/structure for management of activities

  18. Possible steps & questions Need for synchronisation of projects Discuss and decide to adopt a pragmatic or more ‘theoretical’ approach to define linkages • Possible steps (pragmatic approach): • List (common) definitions and terms (file on CIRCA?) • Decide on, and describe the common definitions used • Establish content & time linkages between groups. Thus, complete table 1 • (define content of links, how, the expected deliverable and timing) • Select working group clusters for a overall management structure • Decide on a moment / time where guidance documents will be integrated • Decide on the scope of the activities of the WGs • Further develop the theoretical framework for the WFD (elaborate on table 2) ……to be continued

  19. Questions • Which definitions / terms are used and which are shared between groups? • What are the precise topics of the articles? • Which groups work on these detailed topics? • Which theoretical links can be defined? • Are the relevant ones covered by the already established links?

  20. continued - Possible steps & questions Need for a common finalisation strategy • Possible steps: • Decide whether common strategy for the finalisation of documents is required • Make an inventory of elements involved in finalisation process • Define a draft strategy • Present to SCG and working group chairmen • Distribute information • Questions: • What are common elements for the guidance documents (introduction, • interpretation of WFD, references to other guidance documents etc.) • What are the events when Guidance might need to be updated (outcomes of • other documents, endorsements of Water directors, outcome of pilots, • experience of Member states?) • Which parties are involved in endorsement of the documents (water directors • and?)

  21. continued - Possible steps & questions Need for an overall concept/structure for management of activities • Possible steps: • Develop a management tool and define a management structure • Questions: • • Who needs / wants direct access to make changes in the programme? • • Who is responsible for the administration and coordination of the • programming? • • What is the preferred procedure for up dating / changing?

More Related