p3m3 Self Assessment Report 2012

P3M3TM Self Assessment Report
VERSION 1.0 | SEPTEMBER 2012
Authorisation
Approvals
Name
Rosanne Frost
Organisation
Department of Finance
and Deregulation
Distribution List
Name
Signature & Date
27 September 2012
Position
Group/Division
Jenet Connell
Chief Operating Officer
COOG
Cheryl-Ann Moy
Assistant Secretary
AMPS/M&PS
Stein Helgeby
Anne Collins
Paul Stokoe
Brett Quester
Tim Brunton
Deputy Secretary
Assistant Secretary
Assistant Secretary
Assistant Secretary
Assistant Secretary
Director
Director, Transition
Transition Manager
Director, PMO
Assistant Director, PMO
Program Manager, PMO

Project Manager, PMO
Project Manager PMO

Project Officer, PMO
Project Officer, PMO
UNCLASSIFIED
FMG
FMG/FRACMD
COOG/CIOD
COOG/CIOD
COOG/CIOD
COOG/CIOD
COOG/CIOD
COOG/CIOD
COOG/CIOD
COOG/CIOD
COOG/CIOD
COOG/CIOD
COOG/CIOD
COOG/CIOD
COOG/CIOD
COOG/CIOD
COOG/CIOD
COOG/CIOD
Page 2 of 27
Revision History
Date
Version
Modified By
Change History
07/09/2012
0.1 Draft
Assistant Director
IT Portfolio Management
Draft
20/09/2012
0.3 Draft
24/09/2012
0.4 Draft
Assistant Director
Update to validate
interview and evidence
information
26/09/2012
1.0 Final
17/09/2012
0.2 Draft
Michael Chachaty
Blue Visions Management
Pty Ltd
Michael Chachaty
Blue Visions Management
Pty Ltd
Assistant Director
UNCLASSIFIED
Update to include
interview information
Review and Update
Review, Update and

make Final
Page 3 of 27
Contents
Authorisation
Approvals
Distribution List
Revision History
Contents
1.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2.
SCOPE
2.1 Inclusions
2.2 Exclusions
2.3 Assessment Background
2.4 Assessment Approach
3.
TM
CURRENT P3M3
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
UNCLASSIFIED
25
Page 4 of 27

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.
P3M3TM Assessment
3
2
Portfolio Management
Programme Management
1
Project Management
0
Portfolio
Management
Programme
Management
Project
Management
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.
UNCLASSIFIED
Page 5 of 27
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.
UNCLASSIFIED
Page 6 of 27
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.
UNCLASSIFIED
Page 7 of 27
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 programs 1 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
2.2
Exclusions
Various projects within these programs.
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
2.3
Assessment Background
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.
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:
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 DoFDs
strategic objectives.
UNCLASSIFIED
Page 8 of 27
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
agencys 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 agencys 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 Boards (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 DoFDs entire scope of ICT-enabled change was treated as a single Portfolio.
All individual interviewee results will remain confidential.
UNCLASSIFIED
Page 9 of 27
3.
CURRENT P3M3TM RATINGS
3.1
Maturity Summary - 2012
Project Management
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
1
2
Generic Attributes
Risk Mangement
Organisational
Governance
Resource
Management
Sub-Model Score
Management
Control
Benefits
Management
Financial
Management
Stakeholder
Management
Process Perspectives
1
2
2
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.
UNCLASSIFIED
Page 10 of 27
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.
Portfolio Management - Sub Model

2012 Assessment
2010 Assessment
Management
Control
Resource
Management
Benefits
Management
2
1
1
Organisational
Governance
2
1
2
Financial
Management
2
Stakeholder
Management
Risk Management
Chart 2: Portfolio Management Sub Model (Level 1)
UNCLASSIFIED
Page 11 of 27
Process
Perspectives
Process Description
Management
Control
The organisation recognises the portfolio but has little or nothing in terms
of documented processes or standards for managing the portfolio.
Benefit
Management
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 1)
(Level 1)
Financial
Management
(Level 2)
Stakeholder
Management
(Level 2)
Risk
Management
(Level 2)
Organisational
Governance
(Level 2)
Resource
Management
(Level 1)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
UNCLASSIFIED
Page 12 of 27
Portfolio Management - Generic Attributes

5
4
3
2
1
0
2012 Assessment
2010 Assessment
Chart 3: Portfolio Management Generic Attributes (Level 1)

Generic Attributes
Roles & Responsibilities
(Level 1)
Experience in Portfolio
Management
(Level 2)
Generic Attributes Description

No standard roles, and responsibilities are not defined or are
generic.
Key individuals may have practical delivery experience and track

record.
Capability Development
Generic training may be provided in key concepts, and there may

be individuals undertaking qualification training.
Planning & Estimating
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)
(Level 2)
Information &
Documentation
(Level 2)
Scrutiny and Review

(Level 2)
Local sharing of knowledge may exist but mostly ad hoc.
Focus on documentation during start-up and definition, but not

maintained over initiatives life cycle. Localised information
structures, with some information sharing between teams.
Limited localised information controls, with no formal release
management arrangements.
Local reviews, with some corrective actions undertaken within the

group.
UNCLASSIFIED
Page 13 of 27
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.
Programme Management - Sub Model

2010 Assessment
2012 Assessment
Management Control
Resource
Management
2
Organisational
Governance
Benefits Management
2
1
1
2
2
Risk Management
Financial Management
2
Stakeholder
Management
Chart 4: Programme Management Sub Model (Level 1)
UNCLASSIFIED
Page 14 of 27
Process
Perspectives
Management
Control
(Level 1)
Benefit
Management
(Level 1)
Process Description
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.
There is some recognition that the concepts of benefits can be
differentiated from programme outcomes.
Financial
Management
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.
Stakeholder
Management
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.
(Level 2)
(Level 2)
Risk
Management
(Level 2)
Organisational
Governance
(Level 2)
Resource
Management
(Level 1)
Overall cost of the programme is not monitored or fully accounted for.
Risk management is recognised and used on programmes, but there are

inconsistent approaches which result in different levels of commitment
and effectiveness.
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.
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.
UNCLASSIFIED
Page 15 of 27
Programme Management - Generic Attributes

5
4
3
2
1
0
2012 Assessment
2010 Assessment
Chart 5: Programme Management Generic Attributes (Level 2)

Generic Attributes
Roles, responsibilities and competencies defined in some areas but

not consistently across the organisation.
(Level 2)
Management
(Level 2)
Key individuals may have practical delivery experience and track

record.

be individuals undertaking qualification training.
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)
(Level 2)
Information &
Documentation
(Level 2)
Scrutiny and Review

(Level 2)
Local sharing of knowledge may exist but mostly ad hoc.


group.
UNCLASSIFIED
Page 16 of 27
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.
Project Management - Sub Model

2012 Assessment
2010 Assessment
Management Control
Resource Management
Benefits Management
2
2
Organisational
Governance
3
2
Financial Management
3
Risk Management
Stakeholder Management
Chart 6: Project Management Sub Model (Level 2)
UNCLASSIFIED
Page 17 of 27
Process
Perspectives
Management
Control
(Level 2)
Benefit
Management
(Level 2)
Financial
Management
(Level 3)
Stakeholder
Management
(Level 2)
Risk
Management
(Level 2)
Organisational
Governance
(Level 3)
Resource
Management
(Level 2)
Process Description
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.
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.
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.
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 is recognised and used on projects, but there are
inconsistent approaches, which result in different levels of commitment
and effectiveness.
Centrally defined organisational controls are applied consistently to all
projects, with decision-making structures in place and linked to
organisational governance
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.
UNCLASSIFIED
Page 18 of 27
Project Management - Generic Attributes

5
4
3
2
1
0
2012 Assessment
2010 Assessment
Chart 7: Project Management Generic Attributes (Level 2)

Generic Attributes
(Level 3)
Management
(Level 3)
(Level 2)

(Level 3)
Information &
Documentation
(Level 2)
Scrutiny and Review

(Level 2)

Centrally managed role definitions and sets of competencies
defined and used to secure appointments.
Key individuals have practical delivery experience and track

record.
be individuals undertaking qualification training. Local sharing of
knowledge may exist but mostly ad hoc.
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.


group.
UNCLASSIFIED
Page 19 of 27
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.
UNCLASSIFIED
Page 20 of 27
4.1
Portfolio Management Target 2 Recommended
The information below summarises the assessment teams 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.
Benefit Management (Level 1)

There is some recognition that the concepts of
benefits can be differentiated from programme
outcomes.
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.
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.
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.
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
Current Level
Target Level
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
UNCLASSIFIED
Page 21 of 27
4.2
Programme Management Target 2 Recommended
Process Perspective
Current Level
Target Level

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).

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

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
Current Level
Target Level
All at Level 2 currently
UNCLASSIFIED
Page 22 of 27
4.2
Project Management Target 3 Recommended
Process Perspective
Current Level
Target Level
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)
Stakeholder Management (Level 3)
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.
There is a centrally managed and consistent

approach to stakeholder engagement and
communications used by all projects.
Risk Management (Level 2)
Risk Management (Level 3)
Risk management is recognized and used on

projects, but there are inconsistent approaches,
which result in different levels of commitment
and effectiveness.
Project risk management is based on a

centrally defined process that is cognizant of
the organizations policy for the management
of risks and is used consistently.
Appropriate guidance is provided to project

managers on stakeholder identification,
analysis and engagement.
Risk management is an active part of the
UNCLASSIFIED
Page 23 of 27
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
Current Level
Target Level
Capability Development (Level 2)
Capability Development (Level 3)
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
Training is focused on the organizations

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)
Information & Documentation (Level 3)
Focus on documentation during start-up and

definition, but not maintained over initiatives
life cycle. Localized information structures, with
some information sharing between teams.
Limited localized information controls, with no
formal release management arrangements
Information has a refresh cycle or is regularly

accessed. Organization-wide information
standards on confidentiality, availability and
integrity. Formal information release
management procedures.
Scrutiny and Review (Level 2)
Scrutiny and Review (Level 3)
Local reviews, with some corrective actions

undertaken within the group
Independent reviews take place, which are

geared towards both compliance and
opportunities for improvement.
Consistency exists in the storage, integrity

and retrieval of project information.
UNCLASSIFIED
Page 24 of 27
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 organisations 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.
UNCLASSIFIED
Page 25 of 27
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 initiatives
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 organisations 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 initiatives 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 organisations strategic direction,
including start-up, closure and during the initiatives 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.
UNCLASSIFIED
Page 26 of 27
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 individuals 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.
UNCLASSIFIED
Page 27 of 27

p3m3 Self Assessment Report 2012

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

p3m3 Self Assessment Report 2012

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

P3M3TM Self Assessment Report

VERSION 1.0 | SEPTEMBER 2012

Signature & Date

Chief Operating Officer

Assistant Director, PMO

Program Manager, PMO

Project Manager, PMO

Review and Update

Review, Update and

P3M3TM Self Assessment Report

2.3 Assessment Background

2.4 Assessment Approach

3.1 Maturity Summary - 2012

3.2 Portfolio Management Maturity Summary

3.3 Programme Management Maturity Summary

3.4 Project Management Maturity Summary

4.1 Portfolio Management Target 2 Recommended

4.2 Programme Management Target 2 Recommended

4.2 Project Management Target 3 Recommended

P3M3TM Self Assessment Report

Chart 1: P3M3TM Results (2012 Results)

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

Programme Management Sub-Model Rated at Level 1

Recent investment in the development of an organisational wide programme management

Greater recognition and reporting at programme level, with consideration to inter-project

Increasing awareness on programme wide investments and flexibility, through the

Project Management Sub-Model Rated at Level 2

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

Cost forecasting improving bringing more confidence in delivering to budgets;

Recent implementation of resource coordinators focused on increasing resource forward

Portfolio and Programme Management Level 2 maturity because

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

To support effective programme and portfolio management, project management standards

Capability Improvement Plan (CIP)

P3M3 Governance and Reporting

CBMSR Program; and

Various projects within these programs.

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

Agencies have the option of conducting a self-assessment or engaging a P3M3 Accredited

Programs are major DoFD

The purpose of this P3M3 Self Assessment is to:

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;

Individuals within the Portfolio Management Office staff.

All individual interviewee results will remain confidential.

CURRENT P3M3TM RATINGS

Maturity Summary - 2012

Table 1, P3M3TM Maturity Score 2012

Project Management Sub-Model (Level 2)

Portfolio Management Maturity Summary

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

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

Enhanced visibility and investment decisions including comparison of respective merits of

Portfolio Management - Sub Model

Chart 2: Portfolio Management Sub Model (Level 1)

There is some recognition that initiatives may exist within the

There are business cases produced and some, usually departmental,

Portfolios will be communicated to stakeholders, but this is linked more to

Portfolio resource requirements are recognised but not systematically