AIPM State of the Nation A Review of the Status of Project Management in Australia – A Personal Perspective Colin Dobie Immediate Past President AIPM

AIP

M

State of the NationState of the Nation

A Review of the Status of Project Management in Australia – A Personal Perspective

Colin DobieImmediate Past President AIPMChairman Asia Pacific Federation of Project Management

AIP

M

State of the Nation – State of the Nation – Project Management in AustraliaProject Management in Australia

IntroductionIntroduction

Profession?Profession?

Organisational AdoptionOrganisational Adoption

PeoplePeople

ProcessProcess

Performance – Outcome of ProjectsPerformance – Outcome of Projects

Score-card ResultsScore-card Results

ConclusionConclusion

AIP

M

The presentation addresses each category, and in the opinion of the author The presentation addresses each category, and in the opinion of the author an assessment is made as to whether the objectives are achieved from the an assessment is made as to whether the objectives are achieved from the perspective of project management in Australia. While there are positives perspective of project management in Australia. While there are positives and negatives weighed for each sub-category, the overall ‘score’ only is and negatives weighed for each sub-category, the overall ‘score’ only is recorded here, as a P (Positive) or N (Negative).recorded here, as a P (Positive) or N (Negative).

AIP

M

ProfessionProfession

Acceptance as a ProfessionAcceptance as a Profession

Professional AssociationProfessional Association

GlobalisationGlobalisation

‘‘Profession’ addresses where project management meets criteria commonly applied to Profession’ addresses where project management meets criteria commonly applied to professions; success or otherwise of AIPM; and whether globalisation initiatives have professions; success or otherwise of AIPM; and whether globalisation initiatives have impacted positively on project management in Australia (take-up by government, impacted positively on project management in Australia (take-up by government, transnationals, etc).transnationals, etc).

AIP

M


Acceptance as a ProfessionAcceptance as a Profession NN

Professional AssociationProfessional Association PP

GlobalisationGlobalisation NN

AIP

M

OrganisationOrganisation

GovernanceGovernance

Management Roles & Management Roles & Responsibilities (Steering Responsibilities (Steering Committee / Owner / Sponsor)Committee / Owner / Sponsor)Organisational AcceptanceOrganisational Acceptance

MaturityMaturity

Addresses the Organisation in the context of whether satisfactory governance structures are in place and processes are practised in the majority of organisations; roles and responsibilities of key executive commitment to project delivery; organisations are accepting project management as a business discipline; and more organisations are going up the maturity scale (with less regression).

AIP

M


GovernanceGovernance NNManagement Roles & Management Roles & Responsibilities (Steering Responsibilities (Steering Committee / Owner / Sponsor)Committee / Owner / Sponsor) NN

Organisational AcceptanceOrganisational Acceptance NN

MaturityMaturity NN

AIP

M

PeoplePeople

Portfolio Manager / Program Portfolio Manager / Program DirectorDirector

Project ManagerProject Manager

Team MemberTeam Member

Recruitment / Employment to Recruitment / Employment to Endorsed CriteriaEndorsed Criteria

Addresses certified competence at three levels; and whether more organisations seek to engage project managers to competency criteria.

AIP

M

PeoplePeople

Portfolio Manager / Program Portfolio Manager / Program DirectorDirector

PP

Project ManagerProject Manager PP

Team MemberTeam Member PP


PP

AIP

M

ProcessProcess

Project Management CycleProject Management Cycle

Portfolio CyclePortfolio Cycle

Project / Business AlignmentProject / Business AlignmentAddresses processes at three levels; project, portfolio, and project to business alignment (such that process and role relationships are understood and practised.)

AIP

M

ProcessProcess

Project Management CycleProject Management Cycle PP

Portfolio CyclePortfolio Cycle NN

Project / Business AlignmentProject / Business Alignment NN

AIP

M

Performance Outcomes of ProjectsPerformance Outcomes of Projects

Projects Delivered Better?Projects Delivered Better?

Benefits RealisationBenefits Realisation

Social / Environmental BenefitsSocial / Environmental Benefits

Project Management supporting Project Management supporting Emerging Nations, Social ProjectsEmerging Nations, Social Projects

The final category is whether projects are actually improving in delivery terms. Are Australian organisations specifying benefits criteria and tracking to realisation (including post-project)? Are there social and environmental benefits specified and achieved in major projects? Is enough being done to use project management to support social/ welfare/ aid projects or is it more a tool of the already successful/ rich (to be more successful/ rich)?

AIP

M


Projects Delivered Better?Projects Delivered Better? PP

Benefits RealisationBenefits Realisation NN

Social / Environmental Social / Environmental BenefitsBenefits PP

Project Management Project Management supporting Emerging supporting Emerging Nations, Social ProjectsNations, Social Projects

NN

AIP

M


The preceding slides give a perception of success (8 positives, 10 negatives), but isn’t enough to give a real scorecard result.

A way is to use our own techniques, and derive a value versus risk map, or bubble-chart; i.e.: what value is project management delivering, versus the downside or negatives of non-achievement.

The following two slides explain the technique (do not worry about details, it is the method of benefits management that is important). Criteria both positive and negative for a project’s outcomes are listed, weighted in the context of the portfolio in which the project resides, and is scored. The total value (positive) score is compared to the total risk (negative) score. In this example it is 123: - 115, which equates in a score out of 5 to 3.2: -3.0.

This is then logged in the bubble-chart at 3.2 on the value axis and 3.0 on the risk axis. A balanced portfolio would have projects in 3 of the 4 quadrants, but would avoid any projects that slip into the bottom right-hand quadrant (little value, high risk/ negatives). For this exercise I have logged the example project as a square.

FactorFactor Risk / Risk / ValueValue

PortfolioPortfolioWeighting 1-10Weighting 1-10

ProjectProjectScore 0-5Score 0-5 TotalTotal

StrategicStrategic

Meets current corporate strategyMeets current corporate strategy ValueValue 99 33 2727

Retains relevance over 5 year strategyRetains relevance over 5 year strategy RiskRisk -8-8 33 -24-24

Corporate imageCorporate image ValueValue 77 22 1414

GovernanceGovernance

Regulatory Authority/StatutoryRegulatory Authority/Statutory ValueValue 55 33 1515

ObligationObligation

Project Innovation v. ComplianceProject Innovation v. Compliance RiskRisk -8-8 44 -32-32

RequirementsRequirements

TechnicalTechnical

Re-use of technical solutionRe-use of technical solution ValueValue 77 33 2121

Technical uncertaintyTechnical uncertainty RiskRisk -8-8 33 -24-24

Innovation / Technical excellence of Innovation / Technical excellence of solutionsolution

ValueValue 66 55 3030

ProjectProject

ComplexityComplexity RiskRisk -7-7 22 -14-14

Resource availabilityResource availability RiskRisk -7-7 33 -21-21

Personnel experience gained / re-usePersonnel experience gained / re-use ValueValue 44 44 1616

Total Value Score (190)Total Value Score (190) 123 (3.2)123 (3.2)

Total Risk Score (-190)Total Risk Score (-190) -115 (-3.0)-115 (-3.0)

Value / Risk ScoreValue / Risk Score 8 8

©CPMGroup 2003 – Not to be reproduced without express permission of author


AIP

M

Review our Project in the same context of Assessment to (Selection) Criteria:

Project Objective when introduced was

“To Introduce and Promote a Profession of Project Management in Australia”

Selection CriteriaSelection Criteria

AIP

M


Dealing with how the ‘Profession’ of Project Management is holding up, I have now applied my evaluation based on the last 10 years of observation across 12 industry sectors and government at 3 levels in Australia. I have weighted each element, and score each out of 5. It derives a score, revealing my evaluation of major strengths (People) and major weaknesses (Organisation). The negatives outweigh the positives (83:-108) which equates to a score out of 5 of 2.1:-2.7.

Project Management Score-card Value / Risk Map (Here referred to as Positive / Negative)

Weighting (5) Score +/-5 Result Profession Acceptance as Profession N 5 -3 -15 Professional Association P 4 3 12 Globalisation N 4 -3 -12 -15 Organisation Governance N 4 -3 -12 Mgt Roles & Responsibilities N 3 -3 -9 Organisational Acceptance N 3 -2 -6 Maturity N 3 -2 -6 -33 People Portfolio Mgr / Program Dir P 5 1 5 Project Manager P 4 4 16 Team Member P 3 2 6 Recruit/Employ to Standards P 3 3 9 36 Process Project Management Cycle P 4 5 20 Portfolio Cycle N 5 -2 -10 Project / Business Alignment N 4 -2 -8 2 Performance Projects Delivered Better P 5 1 5 Benefits Realisation N 5 -2 -10 Social/Environ Benefits P 5 2 10 Project Mgt Supporting

Emerging Nations / Social Projects

N 5 -4 -20

-15 Overall: +83

-108 “Balanced Score-card” +2.1

-2.7

AIP

M


Acceptance as a ProfessionAcceptance as a Profession NN 55 -3-3 -15-15

Professional AssociationProfessional Association PP 44 33 1212

GlobalisationGlobalisation NN 44 -3-3 -12-12

-15-15

AIP

M


GovernanceGovernance NN 44 -3-3 -12-12Management Roles & Management Roles & Responsibilities (Steering Responsibilities (Steering Committee / Owner / Sponsor)Committee / Owner / Sponsor) NN 33 -3-3 -9-9

Organisational AcceptanceOrganisational Acceptance NN 33 -2-2 -6-6

MaturityMaturity NN 33 -2-2 -6-6

-33-33

AIP

M

PeoplePeoplePortfolio Manager / Program Portfolio Manager / Program DirectorDirector

PP 55 11 55

Project ManagerProject Manager PP 44 44 1616

Team MemberTeam Member PP 33 22 66


PP 33 33 99

3636

AIP

M

ProcessProcess

Project Management CycleProject Management Cycle PP 44 55 2020

Portfolio CyclePortfolio Cycle NN 55 -2-2 -10-10

Project / Business AlignmentProject / Business Alignment NN 44 -2-2 -8-8

22

AIP

M

Performance Outcomes of ProjectsPerformance Outcomes of ProjectsProjects Delivered Better?Projects Delivered Better? PP 55 11 55

Benefits RealisationBenefits Realisation NN 55 -2-2 -10-10

Social / Environmental Social / Environmental BenefitsBenefits

PP 55 22 1010

Project Management Project Management supporting Emerging supporting Emerging Nations, Social ProjectsNations, Social Projects

NN 55 -4-4 -20-20

-15-15

AIP

M

SummarySummary

ProfessionProfession -15-15OrganisationOrganisation -33-33PeoplePeople 3636ProcessProcess 22Performance – Outcomes of ProjectsPerformance – Outcomes of Projects -15-15

In summary, the ‘score’ of all sub-categories is 8.3: -1.8, a difference of 15 in the negative. On a bubble-chart this equates to 2.1: - 2.7, which puts the profession of project management in the wrong quadrant (too many negatives, not adding enough value).


AIP

M

But should we leave it there? Of course not. The objective is to pinpoint areas to improve, the most dramatic being the organisation area, in governance, roles, acceptance and maturity. In this category alone, if we could turn it around to the positive, as shown in the next slide, the net impact is to delete 33 from the negative and add it to the positive – a score of 116:-75 or 3.1:-1.7.(Note: the scoring system is indicative only and the scores are my opinions only – the principle is the important thing here, and that is where the greatest need for improvement lies).

AIP

M


GovernanceGovernance PP 44 33 1212Management Roles & Management Roles & Responsibilities (Steering Responsibilities (Steering Committee / Owner / Sponsor)Committee / Owner / Sponsor) PP 33 33 99

Organisational AcceptanceOrganisational Acceptance PP 33 22 66

MaturityMaturity PP 33 22 66

3333

AIP

M

The bubble-chart now has the ‘project management acceptance as a profession’ project where it should be – high value being added, fewer negatives. The moral? We are getting individual criteria right; haven’t quite got ‘professional’ acceptance sewn up; are delivering some projects better but not in any uniform, measurable benefits way; and we MUST achieve better results in pursuing organisational acceptance and being relevant to departments and enterprises before we can say our profession has ‘arrived’.


AIP

M

State of the NationState of the Nation

A Review of the Status of Project Management in Australia – A Personal Perspective

Colin DobieImmediate Past President AIPMChairman Asia Pacific Federation of Project Management

Documents

AIPM State of the Nation A Review of the Status of Project Management in Australia – A Personal Perspective Colin Dobie Immediate Past President AIPM