L6-13 Strategic Public Sector Programme Management Student - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


PPT – L6-13 Strategic Public Sector Programme Management Student PowerPoint presentation | free to download - id: 3c3b0b-MjI4M


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation

L6-13 Strategic Public Sector Programme Management Student


L6-13 Strategic Public Sector Programme Management Student Slides Differences in Programme and Project Monitoring Historically, the term programme management ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:146
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 231
Provided by: pennwoodO


Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: L6-13 Strategic Public Sector Programme Management Student

L6-13 Strategic Public Sector Programme
Student Slides
Welcome and Introductions
Unit Characteristics
  • This unit provides a strategic overview of how
    the public sector manages major programmes and
  • Students will need to demonstrate a critical
    appreciation of
  • Managing major programme and project risks
  • The importance of knowledge management as a
    culture not a process
  • Strategic supplier communications, in particular
    relating to
  • (1) Public Private Partnerships (PPP)
  • (2) Private Finance Initiative (PFI) projects
  • (3) Projects with high risk ratings

Unit Characteristics
  • There is a particular focus upon the
  • Critical analysis of funding methods and
    financial models
  • The selection of programme and project management
  • including the use of OGC Gateway and/or
    other gateway processes
  • applicable to the public sector

Unit Characteristics
  • By the end of this unit therefore, students
    should be able to
  • Demonstrate their ability to manage major public
    sector programmes
  • effectively..
  • Taking into account the complexities of
  • (1) managing significant resources
  • (2) stakeholders and activities

Statements of practice
  • On completion of this unit, students will be able
  • Critically examine programme and project
    management structures
  • and processes for major service, IT or
    construction projects
  • Analyse major programme and project risks and
    their management
  • through knowledge management and strategic
  • relationships in the public sector

Statements of practice
  • On completion of this unit, students will be able
  • Critically assess arguments and principles
    underlying the selection
  • of funding methods and financial models for
    major projects
  • Justify the selection of major programme and
    project monitoring and
  • management strategies

Learning Objectives
1.0 Critically examine programme and project
management structures and processes for major
service, IT or construction projects (Weighting
25) 2.0 Analyse major programme and project
risks and their management through knowledge
management and strategic supplier relationships
in the public sector. (Weighting 25) 3.0
Critically assess arguments and principles
underlying the selection of funding methods and
financial models for major projects (Weighting
25) 4.0 Justify the selection of major
programme and project monitoring and management
strategies (Weighting 25)
L6-13 Strategic Public Sector Programme
Session One
Learning Objectives
1.0 Critically examine programme and project
management structures and processes for major
service, IT or construction projects (Weighting
25) 1.1 Critically evaluate the differences
betweens major programmes and projects, the
relationship between them and the similarities
and differences in their management.
understand the different contexts for programmes
in Central and Local Government, National Health
Service (NHS), Defence, Non-departmental public
bodies (NDPBs,) and other public sector
organisations management connections between
project managers and programme managers 1.2
Analyse models designed to ensure proper
programme and project management procedures and
principles are in place and adhered to so that
major projects are delivered to time, cost,
quality standards and with minimum disruption to
services. programme and project management
tools and models public sector track-record
of project delivery and failures of delivery
political and practical consequences of public
sector project failures
Project and Programme Management Linkages
  • The linkages between Programme and Project
    Management need to be clearly defined i.e.
  • Project management (single projects)
  • Programme management (a set of
  • related or connected projects)

Project and Programme Management Linkages
  • The importance of connectivity in the public
    sector could be due to
  • Complexity
  • Limited resources
  • Increased political context
  • Definition difficulties
  • Common activities across more
  • than one project
  • Risk management

Definitions of Programmes
Programmes are the delivery of multiple
interdependent projects and activities which
taken together deliver significant business
benefits. Many public sector organisations have
recognised the shortcomings of traditional
project management and have introduced programme
management frameworks and roles to co-ordinate
and align multiple projects and to act as
interface with the business.
Definitions of Programmes
Cranfield School of Management research has shown
that many experienced project and programme
managers are poor at facilitating complex change
and even understanding the differences in project
and programme management and confusion can
quickly spread.
Definitions of Programme Management
A programme is a temporary organisation for
performing a unique process of large scope. A
programme is a set of projects and tasks which
are closely coupled by common objectives.
Programmes are limited as to time and
budget. The Projektmanagement Group Programme
management is a business process of the
project-oriented operation. The programme
management process consists of the sub-processes
programme start, programme co-ordination,
programme controlling, programme close-down and
occasional the management of the programme
discontinuity. The Projektmanagement
Group Programme management is the effective
management of several individual but related
projects or functional activities in order to
produce an overall system that works
effectively. Brunswick Management Services
Programme Management (Central and Local
  • Management of programmes can differ between
    Central and Local
  • government greatly due to things such as
  • Culture
  • Politics
  • History
  • Environment (with a small e)
  • Environment
  • History
  • However, the basics of management of programmes
    remain in that there is
  • normally a mechanism that translates strategic
    policy into tangible deliverables
  • to achieve a goal.

Programme Management (Central and Local
  • Historically, the term, programme management has
    not been widely recognised
  • within central government.
  • However, a succession of previous government
    policy makers must have
  • used some logical thinking process that
    translates central policy into tangible
  • Actions
  • Processes, and
  • Outcomes
  • The only difference being the lack of a
    recognised, and formalised, process and
  • framework to manage programmes in a consistent
    and structured manner.

Definitions of Project Management
A project is a temporary endeavour undertaken to
create a unique product or service. Project
management is the application of knowledge,
skills, tools and techniques to project
activities to meet project requirements The
Project Management Institute (PMI) The
application of modern management techniques and
systems to the execution of a project from start
to finish, to achieve predetermined objectives of
scope, quality, time and cost, to the equal
satisfaction of those involved. Ohio State
Definitions of Project Management
Project Management is the discipline of
planning, organizing, and managing resources to
bring about the successful completion of specific
project Anon PM process starts with the
project assignment and ends with the project
approval. It consists of the sub-processes
project start, project co-ordination, project
controlling, project discontinuity management and
project close-down. The Projektmanagement Group
Definitions of Projects
  • Projects are different from business as usual
    activities because they have a number of
    distinguishing features
  • They bring about change
  • They may offer investment opportunities
  • They have unknown elements, therefore - they
    create risk

Definitions of Projects
  • Business as usual activities are recognisable
  • There are known policies, processes, procedures
    or precedents which may be followed
  • There is virtually no risk (as opposed to the
    problems which often occur in meeting deadlines
  • The activities are not new, but repeated (albeit
    not necessarily very frequently)
  • Therefore, they do not offer direct change.

Definitions of Projects
  • Projects can bring about change, but this can
    range from a relatively small change (e.g.
    introducing a system for reducing headcount in
    CBAA) to something far more significant (e.g.
    creation of a whole new process).
  • Appropriate levels of management will be required
    according to the magnitude of the change.

Definitions of Projects
Projects are investment opportunities as opposed
to operational, business as usual activities.
They consume resources and require funding
which will be authorised by a project board
either as part of the annual planning process or
outside of it where requests are raised at a
later date.
Definitions of Projects
  • A project will have a measurable outcome in terms
    of impacts (i.e. changes to what is done or the
    way things are done) and benefits (either
    tangible, increased revenue or cost avoidance, or
    non-tangible in terms of moving Brookes towards
    its strategic objectives).
  • Cross-functional initiatives will be subject to
    project governance and the project board for such
    activities will be the executive board. Where
    projects are contained within a single unit, the
    project board will be the unit management team
    with PMO representation.

Project and Programme Management Connections (PPM)
  • There are clear connections between programme and
    project management in the public sector and the
    linkage for the two cuts across all functions,
  • Finance
  • Operations
  • IT
  • Suppliers
  • In the public sector the question of risk is
    always present and the linkage between programme
    (big picture assessment) and project (project
    issues) could be developed.

Programme and Project Management (PPM)
  • Effective project and programme management
    provides a consistent and structured approach
    which will assist in
  • Initiate programmes
  • Align projects
  • Deliver new projects or services
  • Supports change management in complex projects
  • Supports risk assessment to reduce project
  • Supports financial modelling
  • Identification of key skills requirement

The Concept of Business Change and Programme
  • What are the key drivers for business change?
  • Reengineering of business processes
  • Mergers and acquisitions
  • Supply chain management
  • Continuous improvement initiatives both internal
    and external to the business
  • Outsourcing

The Concept of Business Change and Programme
The Concept of Business Change and Programme
  • Key issues for change
  • Organisational cultures and structures
  • New skills, new ways of thinking, and new values
    to meet future business
  • needs
  • Development of innovative business solutions
  • Complexity and risk
  • Change is no longer the exclusive property of the
    private sector
  • The change revolution is already entrenched
    within public sector enterprises.

Local Authority Programmes and Projects
Local Authority Programmes and Projects
  • This cascading effect from central to local
    government activity means that local authorities
    also require a clearly defined strategic approach
    to managing both programmes and projects.
  • However, in practice achieving a common practice
    on project and programme management is
    particularly difficult for local authorities.
  • This is predominantly due to the number of
    rapidly changing issues that local authorities
    invariably encounter as demonstrated in

Local Authority Programmes and Projects
  • The range of local authority personnel involved
    in programme management can also be quite
    diverse. Key personnel can be considered to be
  • Lead Members Chief Officers
  • Programme Managers
  • Customer Service Managers
  • Heads of ICT
  • Heads of Service
  • The skill and experience level of the above
    personnel will inevitably be variable in the
    context of programme management.
  • As such a consistent and structured approach to
    PPM is necessary to initiate programmes and align
    the projects and related activities to deliver
    new products and/or service capabilities to the
    business operation.

Local Authority Programmes and Projects IDeA
  • IDeA Procurement Programme
  • The Procurement Programme provides the commercial
    and resource management content of the following
    Improvement and Development Agency (IDeA)
    programme areas
  • efficiency
  • transformational government
  • local strategic partnerships (LSPs)
  • third sector commissioning.
  • IDeA also supports Local Authorities with
    strategic commissioning.

NHS Programmes and Projects
  • National Health Service (NHS)
  • Within the Government funds available, the NHS is
    targeted to transform the services that patients
    receive. These targets are in the Planning and
    Priorities Framework for 2005/6 to 2007/8.
    Principal among these are
  • Substantially to reduce mortality rates from
    heart disease and stroke
  • To support people with long-term conditions
  • To reduce overall emergency bed days by 5
  • To reduce the maximum waiting time for hospital
    treatment to 18 weeks
  • To reform the health system fundamentally, so
    that change is driven more by
  • incentives to respond to patients than by
    top-down target setting

NHS Programmes and Projects
ISIP (Integrated Service Improvement Programme)
  ISIP is a structured programme framework that
is intended to assist senior NHS staff plan to
deliver fundamental change as outlined within the
framework targets. ISIP provides the practical
toolkits for change and in addition is also used
to provide benchmarks for assessing
organisational progress.
NHS Programmes and Projects
ISIP (Integrated Service Improvement Programme)
NHS ISIP Roadmap workbook
  • PASA is an executive agency of DH. It
    concentrates on those functions that demonstrate
  • value to the NHS. It has responsibility for
    purchasing and supply issues in England only
  • Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have their
    own health services and supply
  • organisations.
  • Key PASA tasks
  • Provide strategic guidance on procurement to the
    NHS where procurement is taking place at a
    regional or local level.
  • Provide practical guidance, education and
    training to those involved in procurement
    throughout the NHS.
  • Promote creativity from suppliers and encourage
    small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) to do
    business with the NHS.
  • Promote sustainable development within the NHS
    and its supply chain to reduce the negative
    environmental and social impacts of procurement
    decisions and increase the positive ones.
  • Encourage the introduction of beneficial,
    innovative products and technologies into the
  • Support the national priorities of the NHS.

  • Outsourcing
  • From 1 October 2006 a contract has been awarded
    to DHL to manage the
  • supply chain services previously controlled by
    the logistics division of the NHS
  • Business Services Authority and part of NHS PASA.
    The new service is
  • known as NHS Supply Chain. Further details can
    be found at
  • www.supplychain.nhs.uk

  • At the strategic level, the MoD Directorate of
    Strategic Transition (DST) has
  • the responsibility for developing the future
    defence strategic direction and
  • managing the associated change programmes.
  • The outputs of the DST fall into four main areas
  • Strategic Change
  • Corporate Communications
  • Programme Management Office (PMO)
  • Right People, Right Skills, Right Environment

  • The PMO in the MoD is responsible for the
    effective governance of
  • change programmes and key governance processes
  • Financial Management
  • Risk
  • Issue Management
  • Coordination of the overall change programme
  • Communications strategy and plan
  • Tracking business benefits
  • Management of the overall programme plan
  • Change control
  • Monthly reporting process to the Change Programme
  • (PMOs are also used in many areas other than

  • A Non-Departmental Public Body (NDPB) is a
    government classification
  • applied to certain types of public body. NDPBs
    are not an integral part of
  • any one Government department, but are ultimately
    responsible, via
  • Government Ministers, to Parliament for any
    activities sponsored by any
  • ministerial department.
  • There are four main types of NDPB
  • Advisory NDPBs Boards which advise ministers on
    particular policy areas
  • Executive NDPBs bodies that usually deliver a
    particular public service and are overseen by a
    board rather than ministers
  • Tribunals NDPBs that have jurisdiction in a
    specific area of the law
  • Independent Monitoring Boards formally known as
    boards of visitors, these are responsible for
    the state of prisons, their administration and
    the treatment of prisoners

  • Typical NDPB structure for Programme and Project

Programme Management Tools and Models (alignment,
assessment and maturity)
Strategic Alignment of Programme Management This
is primarily a top down process, coming from
the strategic plans for the business and provides
the cascading mechanism that translates vision
into tangible project outcomes.
Programme Management Tools and Models (Project
Programme Management Tools and Models (Project
Definition, Measurement and Consequences of
Success or Failure
  • Project Failure Considerations
  • Public sector track-record of project delivery
    and failures of delivery
  • Political and practical consequences of public
    sector project failures.

Definition, Measurement and Consequences of
Success or Failure
  • PPM Failure in the Public Sector Context
  • Failure in any business process can be viewed as
    an opportunity for future improvement. Indeed,
    organisations often discover what works for them
    by finding out what does not.
  • The diminishing public tolerance of failure
    demands accountability and reflective analysis of
    what went wrong and how this can be improved into
    the future.
  • Project failures within the private sector will
    often have limited exposure outside of the
    organisational boundaries (albeit there are many
    examples of exceptions to this rule).
  • By contrast, the transparency of the public
    domain will usually mean that the cost of project
    failure is usually painfully high both in
    political and practical terms ... ... ...

Consequences of Failure (1)
NHS IT scheme now four years behind
schedule Computer Weekly 16th May 2008 Author
Tony Collins Plans for the NHS's national IT
scheme are feasible - but the main software is
running four years behind, and may not be fully
rolled out until 2015, according to a report
published today by the National Audit Office.
Angela Hands, one of the authors of the NAO
report, told Computer Weekly that there is a risk
the care records service - which includes plans
to give 50 million people in England an
electronic medical record - may not be complete
even by 2015. The original plans discussed at
Downing Street in February 2002 were for the
National Programme for IT NPfIT to run for
three years, until 2006. Later ministers said the
aim was to have the programme completed by 2010.
In today's report the NAO said, "Current
indications are that it is likely to take some
four years more than planned - until 2014-15 -
before every NHS trust has fully deployed the
Care Records Service. But this projection is
based on the Lorenzo software supplied by CSC and
its subcontractor IBA Health being fit for
purpose when it is first delivered this summer.
The NAO report said "There remains considerable
uncertainty over the delivery schedule for
Consequences of Failure (2)
The House of Commons' Public Accounts Committee
will question civil servants on the NAO's report
next month. Richard Bacon, a member of the
committee, said, "The latest National Audit
Office report could not be clearer. The 12.7bn
national programme for IT in the National Health
Service is in crisis. The report shows that key
systems are late and show little or no sign of
ever being produced in any useful form. 
"While systems that are suitable for central
deployment such as the N3 broadband link and the
Picture Archiving Communications Systems for
digital x-rays have made good progress, the
serious problems lie with the really complex
systems for acute hospitals where central control
is manifestly not working". The NAO report
praised NHS staff for their hard work and
commitment so far to installing national systems.
It said original timescales for the Care Records
Service proved unachievable, raised expectations
and "put confidence in the programme at risk". It
added that the original vision for the programme
remains intact and still appears feasible.
Consequences of Failure (3)
One of the questions raised by the report is
whether more trusts - particularly foundation
trusts - will be concerned about the quality,
reliability or functionality of some national
systems and buy core products outside the NPfIT -
although the national programme was set up
largely to counteract fragmented buying in the
NHS. The NAO report said that Whitehall may
have to pay fines to local service providers BT,
Fujitsu and CSC, if trusts do not buy from them.
The contracts with local service providers are
based on their systems being deployed at all NHS
trusts at some point. "Foundation trusts cannot
now be forced to take the NPfIT systems and
should any elect not to do so there will be
financial implications for both the trusts
concerned and the programme," said the NAO.
Definition, Measurement and Consequences of
Success or Failure
  • Reasons for programme or project failure can be
    as follows
  • Design and definition failure (linked to scope
    and definition of the programme, lack of
    sufficient clarity)
  • Decision making failures (insufficient level of
    senior management sponsorship and commitment)
  • Programme/project discipline failures
    (inadequate mechanisms for managing risks and
    poor levels of change management skills)

Definition, Measurement and Consequences of
Success or Failure
  • Further reasons for programme or project failure
    can be as follows
  • Supplier management failures (lack of
    understanding of supplier commercial imperatives,
    poor contractual set-up and management)
  • People failure (decoupling between the
    project(s) and stakeholders, lack of ownership,
    cultural issues etc)

Definition, Measurement and Consequences of
Success or Failure
  Measuring PPM Success or Failure   The
judgement of PPM success or failure needs to be
based on a number of factors of a quantitative
and qualitative nature. These factors range from
public perception to that of budget management.
However, due to the nature and sourcing of the
PPM funding, the financial accountability of
public sector spending is particularly sensitive.
  The need for independent audit of public
spending expenditure has been understood and in
existence for many centuries, albeit in many
different forms.
Measurement of Success or Failure Audit Bodies
L6-13 Strategic Public Sector Programme
Session Two
Learning Objectives
  • 1.3 To critically evaluate the effectiveness of
    programme and project boards, project sponsors,
    senior responsible owners (SROs) for various
    kinds of major service, IT or construction
  • composition and membership of project boards
    within all the different public sector
  • composition and membership of programme boards
    in different public sector organisations
  • SRO (senior responsible owner) and their role
    and effectiveness
  • SRIE (senior responsible industry executive) and
    their role and effectiveness.

Programme and Project Boards, SROs and SRIEs
Governance Governance has now become one of the
key issues within public sector organisations.
In the context of PPM it is necessary to align
the overall governance of the organisation with
the governance of the programmes and projects it
invests in. At the PPM level governance will
generally be concerned with risk, accountability
as well as optimising the use of organisational
Programme and Project Boards, SROs and SRIEs
  • Programme Board
  • The Programme Board or Management Board has
    responsibility for total programme and project
    landscape for any specified project. The role of
    the programme and project board in the
    organisational structures can be as follows
  • Execution of programmes and projects
  • The Management Board will coordinate the
    strategic alignment of what is being delivered
    and confirms and the capability and capacity to
    achieve it

Programme and Project Boards, SROs and SRIEs
  • Successful PPM initiatives require strong
    leadership, good communications, and clear vision
    with clinical and executive sponsorship. However
    these qualities are of limited value without a
    robust PPM organisational structure.
  • OGC recommend the programme organisation
    structure should, as a minimum requirement,
    consist of the following
  • Sponsoring Group / SRO
  • Programme Manager
  • Business Change Manager
  • Programme Office

Programme and Project Boards, SROs and SRIEs
Programme and Project Boards, SROs and SRIEs
Programme and Project Boards and Balance
The key roles in a PPM team should be agreed by
the Senior Sponsor and the associated governance
body. The team needs to be balanced in nature
i.e. it needs to contain enough specialisms to
provide focus and to reflect the scope of the
programme. The presence of too many
specialisms can potentially generate management
interference and thus induce unnecessary problems
to the PPM operation.
Programme and Project Boards and Feedback
It is important that programme boards avoid just
being a one-way flow of information through to
the executive hierarchy. This is an important
function, but in addition the board must also
provide (and seek) feedback that will both assist
and motivate associated project teams and key
Programme and Project Boards and the Figurehead
Programme boards need to both understand and
provide robust two-way information flows within
the PPM environment. This requirement is so
important that, in complex PPM activities,
consideration is often given to a figure-head
role from the board, whose remit is to provide a
more visible programme-wide communication
platform to those working in the project teams.
Programme Boards and Project Boards
The programme board organisation structure can be
logically expanded to embrace the associated
project boards
Key Duties of the Project Board
  • Typical key duties of the project board, as
    outlined by OGC, include the following
  • Providing overall strategic guidance for the
  • Managing and communicating project risk
  • Ensuring the quality assurance framework for the
  • Resource management
  • Approving the Project Brief and Project
    Initiation Document
  • Agreeing all major plans together with
    authorising any subsequent major deviations from
    these plans
  • Resolving both plan deviation issues resolving
    conflicts associated with the project team
  • Signing off the completion of each stage and
    giving approval to start the subsequent stage
  • Agreeing the project tolerances for time,
    quality and cost
  • Communicating information about the project to
    the organisation(s) and stakeholder groups as
  • Scheduling and signing-off associated project

Examples of Programme/Project Boards in the
Public Sector
  The following two examples of public sector PPM
activity illustrate the use, and variation, of
programme and project boards in action. The
primary purpose of these examples is to
demonstrate the typical scope of governance
structures used within the public sector,
together with the bespoke nature of the
structures used to manage the situational
Examples of Programme/Project Boards in the
Public Sector
Examples of Programme/Project Boards in the
Public Sector
Summary of Programme and Project Boards in the
Public Sector
These examples demonstrate the diverse nature of
the PPM environment both at a local and national
level. The use of programme and project
management boards is apparent, but in very
different overall governance frameworks, which
illustrate the bespoke situational nature of the
PPM environment. The presence of a programme
and project board, whilst recommended as best
practice by OGC, is no guarantee of
programme/project success, as demonstrated by
numerous public sector project failures. The
operation of these boards often requires a subtle
and considered approach within quite complex
cultural environments. Finally, the operation
of the boards is focussed on delivering what has
been promised to improve the current operating
environment. Along the way many lessons will
emerge from these board activities. This is
valuable knowledge and as such needs to be
embedded into the respective public sector
culture to further underpin future change
The Senior Responsible Owner (SRO) is the senior
individual responsible for ensuring that a
project or programme of change meets its
objectives and delivers the projected benefits.
  The SRO should be the owner of the overall
business change that is being supported by the
PPM. The SRO needs to ensure that the change
maintains its business focus, has clear authority
and that the context, including risks, is
actively managed. As such, the SRO should be
recognised as the PPM owner throughout the
organisation. From a PPM structure perspective
the SRO will usually chair the project (or
programme) board.   The role of SRO is not to be
viewed purely as a figurehead status. As the
owner of the business change, the SRO will be
called upon to provide leadership and direction
throughout the lifecycle of the PPM. This will
often require the SRO to take a proactive
approach to managing the PPM in order to fully
exploit the outcome of the change in order to
deliver the planned benefits of the business
OGC recommend that the SRO should have the
following responsibilities
  • The role of Senior Responsible Industry Executive
    (SRIE) is the equivalent of the SRO role in the
    provider organisation. The SRIE works in
    partnership with the SRO to ensure more
    successful delivery of the public sector change
    programme. In addition to being jointly focused
    on achieving the desired business outcomes, the
    SRO/SRIE need to be open with each other about
    issues, problems, constraints and politics within
    their respective organisations.
  • OGC suggest that SRIE partnering is unlikely to
    be suitable for
  • Short term requirements
  • Projects where the customer requires substantive
    control over the specification and service
    delivery thereby giving the provider little
    flexibility to propose new solutions
  • Contracts where there is little or no scope for
    continuous improvement
  • Contracts where the customer cannot transfer key
    elements of control or major risks to the

OGC recommend that the SRIE should have the
following responsibilities
Managing the SRO/SRIE Relationship
Programme and Project Boards Summary
Session 2 (Learning Objective 1.3) has introduced
the concept and the context of programme and
project boards and their structure. The
composition of these boards, whilst situational
to each operational domain, should refer to the
generic guidelines as specified by OGC.
  Programme and project boards are team
activities. As such there are many important
roles within these two functions. Two key roles
have been evaluated. One is the SRO and the
other, where applicable, is the SRIE. This is not
to under-estimate the value of other related
board activities.   All programme and project
boards need to be conscious of focusing their
activities to adding value to the change event.
Equally, the must also avoid any justifiable
criticism of being an expensive administrative
L6-13 Strategic Public Sector Programme
Session Three
Learning Objectives
1.4 Develop proposals for improvement in
programme management through the application of
good practice principles thorough project
plans with realistic objectives and timescales
risk management clear roles and
responsibilities senior manager responsible for
the project clear shared understanding of the
requirement between client, potential contractors
and other parties regular reviews of progress
skilled, experienced and qualified staff
Developing good practice principles
There is much focus and attention within
government to improve the success rate in
delivering change programmes within the public
sector. One of the key components in both
improving and sustaining enhanced delivery
performance is via professional programme
management and the application of good practice
principles.   There have been many recent
government initiatives that have been designed to
promote, recognise and reward effective use of
programme and project management skills in
achieving successful delivery of public sector
programmes and projects.    Enhanced programme
and management skills, together with the
deployment of best practice, are essential
prerequisites for delivering value for money for
the taxpayer. These programme and project
management skills are often the catalyst to
achieving not only the delivery of public
programmes but to deliver them in an efficient
and effective manner.
Skilled, Experienced and Qualified Staff
  •  OGC recommends the following key steps in
    acquiring and managing the organisation's PPM
  • Define business strategies and goals
  • Determine the competences needed to achieve
    those goals
  • Identify core competences i.e. those competences
    that the organisation must have in-house
  • Analyse current competences and identify gaps
  • Decide on sourcing strategy for addressing the
    gaps, including bringing in new skills and/or
    developing the competences of current staff
  • Monitor and manage ongoing requirements for
    organisational capability

Realistic Project Plans (1)
The Risk Programme Steering Group with the
assistance of the National Audit Office
identified ten main areas where departments need
to pay particular attention from the outset of
policy development if they are to deliver
successfully   One such main area focuses on
setting realistic aims and approaches for policy
delivery to ensure that those delivering the
policy have an achievable plan. This requirement,
whilst vitally important at the outset of a
project, is also required throughout the life
cycle of the project.
Realistic Project Plans (2)
   To achieve realism in project aims the
steering group recommended the following key
actions   Developing a rigorous and professional
business case for proceeding with the policy
which identifies the full resource requirements
over the life of the policy   Identifying all the
costs of the policy should include those that
fall on citizens and businesses   Exploiting the
collective knowledge and experience of the
department and delivery partners in assessing the
balance between costs, quality and timeliness,
and determining whether this balance is realistic
in terms of the expectations for service
delivery   Using appropriate techniques (such as
modelling) to identify factors that if not
addressed will lead to policy failure or
unintended or undesirable effects and retesting
(including repeat pilot) any changes or remedial
measures   Considering how different policy
options will work in practice by testing and
piloting them prior to implementation, ensuring
that lessons learnt are taken on board in full
implementation and looking to involve citizens
and other stakeholders in the testing of policies
wherever possible 
Shared Understanding of Supply Chains
The theme of realism needs to be extended along
the entire delivery supply chain. This is
increasingly relevant as public sector
departments rely on a diverse range of partner
organisations in delivery chains to implement
policies.   As with any chain process it is only
as strong as the weakest link. As such programme
partners also need to possess the appropriate
resources, infrastructure, systems and skills to
deliver. Key actions   Establishing
implementation plans that set out clear roles and
responsibilities for all involved, identifying
resources, and setting out key milestones   Assess
ing the capabilities of the in-house development
and implementation team and if necessary seeking
external expertise   Assessing the capacities and
capabilities of all those involved in delivering
policy to identify any weak links in the delivery
chain and to address any shortcomings or
constraints   Determining how best to involve all
those in the delivery chain in decision making
processes and how to respond to and address their
concerns   Determining how resources can be
allocated to provide incentives to achieve
targets and quality standards, encourage
partnership, and encourage investment and
innovation (for example, by providing certainty
over levels of funding in future years).
Clear Roles and Responsibilities
The following roles are key examples of defined
responsibilities within the PPM environment
Sponsoring Group (including the SRO) providing
top level endorsement and rationale for the scope
and content of the programme/project for
delivering the benefits   Senior Responsible
Owner (SRO) owns the vision and has overall
accountability for the delivery of the new
capability.   Programme Manager has the
responsibility, on behalf of the SRO, for the
successful delivery of the new capability.
  Business Change Manager (BCM) where the
programme introduces substantive change to the
organisation, the BCM is responsible for the
transitional process e.g. revised organisational
structures, operations and working
procedures.   Specialist Roles where
appropriate, the SRO might call upon specialist
input to the programme management. Dependent upon
the input required, these specialisms may be
external or internal to the business.
  Programme/Project Boards - for larger or more
complex programme/project initiatives boards,
chaired by the SRO, might be established to
assist with the management and governance of the
successful delivery of the new capability.
Progress Reviews
Regular reviews of progress are a fundamental
component of programme and project management.
The main purpose of the review is to enable
timely action to be taken to remedy problems and
make sure that the desired outcomes of the
programme are achieved.   In general terms, it is
important that these regular progress reviews are
measured against the business case and the review
findings disseminated to all stakeholders.     The
re are three basic types of programme and project
reviews   Reviews within the programme and
project organisation (PPM reviews)   Gateway
reviews that are conducted by independent peers
  Health Check Review undertaken by experienced
auditors from Internal Audit or consultants
specially commissioned to undertake the work
PPM Reviews
The PPM governance structure will usually
nominate the internal structure for progress
review. Reviews will be performed at various
levels within the programme structure. As such
the agenda for review will range from strategic
to operational in nature. Also the frequency of
review will follow quite diverse timescales from
weekly to annually for example.
Gateway Reviews
OGC Gateway reviews are basically peer review
conducted by independent practitioners from
outside the programme/project environment. This
independent review relies on the experience and
expertise of the review panel to examine the
progress and likelihood of successful delivery of
the programme or project.    Gateway review
process examines programmes and projects at key
decision points in their lifecycle. Over and
above the internal PPM review structure the
Gateway review provides the following   Valuable
additional perspective on the issues facing the
internal PPM team   External challenge to the
robustness of plans and processes   Provides
assurance that the programme/project can progress
successfully to the next stage
Health Check Review (1)
Health Checks are not significantly different
from Gateway Reviews. In essence they are
fundamentally focused on the same objective i.e.
an independent review of the programme or
project to ensure that it is operating in a
controlled and managed way.   Health Checks are
perhaps more appropriate to programme reviews as
they tend to have a broader remit than programme
Gateway reviews. For example, they would
provide independent commentary not only about the
overall programme performance but also evaluate
if the approach being adopted to programme
management is appropriate and likely to lead to
the achievement of the overall business
Health Check Review (2)
The review outcomes of a Health Check will
ideally identify those aspects of the
programme/project which are critical to success.
The review will differentiate between
activities being managed successfully and those
which need to be dealt with differently or with
greater energy. Where concerns are identified the
Health Check should also identify the required
remedial action.   Dependent upon the complexity
and political sensitivity, not every
programme/project will need a Health Check
review. However, where they are appropriate
they are best timed either mid way through, or at
a critical stage within the programme/project.
Summary of Improvements in PPM
The increasingly complex and integrated nature of
programme and project activities requires a very
clear distinction and understanding of roles and
responsibilities.   Best practice PPM frameworks
embrace a structured approach within which are
clearly identified roles and responsibilities.
  Whilst programme structures are invariably
situational, clearly defined roles and
responsibilities are inherent components to
ensure PPM ownership and accountability that is
essential for successful programme and project
delivery.   The review process is also a
necessary component for achieving successful
delivery of change management initiatives.
Reviews can take the form of internal PPM driven
reviews as well as those of an independent nature
that lean on peer and sector expertise.   The
main purpose of the review is to enable timely
action to be taken to remedy problems and make
sure that the desired outcomes of the programme
are achieved. Reviews, of whatever type, need to
be viewed and measured against the business case
and the ability to deliver a successful outcome.
L6-13 Strategic Public Sector Programme
Session Four
Learning Objectives
2.0 Analyse major programme and project risks and
their management through knowledge management and
strategic supplier relationships in the public
sector. (Weighting 25) 2.1 Critically evaluate
theories of risk, models of risk management,
policy guidance and from the academic literature,
policy guidance and practice. risk management
theories and systems risk management in
practice appropriate risk and issues
registers 2.2 Assess evidence from major public
sector programmes and projects on the successful
identification, assessment and allocation of
major project risks Types of risk, including
design and construction commissioning and
operating technology and obsolescence
regulation project financing contractor
default transfer of risks between public,
voluntary and private sectors and between
different parts of the public sector managing
risks through incentivisation of contracts
Risk Management Principles
  • Risk is a generic term related to numerous
    implications such as
  • Policy or strategic risk
  • Financial risk
  • Risk to the public or groups of stakeholders
  • Project/delivery failure
  • Reputational risk
  • Risk management requires organisational knowledge
    and understanding about the risk management
  • However for this process to be successful it also
    requires a cultural framework where people at all
    levels in the business both recognise and manage
    risk effectively.

Risk Management Principles
To meet the challenges of reform policies and
associated targets it is essential that
organisations understand, anticipate and manage
risks accordingly. This risk management
capability is particularly important as
organisations increasingly strive to create
innovative solutions in response to many complex
Risk Management Principles
  • The fundamental components of risk management are
    risk assessment and risk mitigation.
  • The process of risk assessment can be further
    defined into the following stages
  • Risk identification
  • Risk estimation
  • Evaluation

Fundamental Components of Risk Management
Risk Alignment
  • The alignment of risk management with the overall
    strategic governance of the organisation is a
    critical requirement.
  • This alignment has been more formally embraced
    within the assurance model developed by The
    Higher Education Funding Council for England
  • HEFCE developed this assurance framework to
    achieve the following
  • Controlling the delivery of objectives
  • To provide assurance that organisational systems,
    policies and
  • people are operating in an effective manner
  • Provide focus on key risks associated with any
    delivery activity

Risk Alignment
The Higher Education Funding Council for England
(HEFCE) Assurance Framework
Risk Alignment Merged
HEFCE developed this assurance framework to
achieve the following
  • Controlling the delivery of objectives
  • To provide assurance that organisational systems,
    policies and people are operating in an effective
  • Provide focus on key risks associated with any
    delivery activity

Identifying Risk
  • Physical audits
  • Research
  • Analysis of trends
  • Access to records accident reports,
  • Risk assessments

Treating Risk
  • Avoid
  • Minimise
  • Spread
  • Accept

Risk Management Process
Risk assessed
  • Treat
  • minimise
  • spread

Raising Risk Awareness
  • Keep all managers informed
  • Electronic bulletins
  • Red, amber, green systems
  • Involvement
  • audit teams
  • risk questionnaires

Using Risk Registers
  • Risk registers/logs kept as permanent record
  • Record
  • Type
  • Who is responsible
  • Date identified
  • Description
  • Cost
  • Probability
  • Impact
  • Response actions

Risk Register (Example)
Risk Register (Strategic Objective)
  • Risk Impact Probability
    Control Action Owner
  • Late High 35
    Expedite ICT Ian
  • Delivery Report Adjust

Risk Mitigation (PFI)
Under the Private Finance Initiative (PFI),
building projects, such as those found in the
NHS, which once would have totally relied on
public money instead rely on the private sector
for finance. The Conservative government in the
1990s originally devised the PFI scheme which was
seen as a way of bringing in private finance to
improve public services. Under a PFI model the
public sector gives specifications for the
service it needs to receive, whilst leaving the
consortium scope to determine how best to deliver
the overall hospital.
Risk Mitigation (PFI)
Essentially an NHS trust would ask a consortium
to sell them the use of a fully functional
hospital and the consortium would determine how
best to provide this. The NHS Trust would then
enter a contract with the consortium for the use
of the hospital and its services for a given
length of time, typically around 25 to 50 years.
The Private Finance Initiative (PFI) was
introduced as a funding method for major public
projects in 1992.
Risk Mitigation (PFI)
The PFI is a form of public private partnership
(PPP) that marries a public procurement
programme, where the public sector purchases
capital items from the private sector, to an
extension of contracting-out, where public
services are contracted from the private sector.
PFI differs from privatisation in that the
public sector retains a substantial role in PFI
projects, either as the main purchaser of
services or as an essential enabler of the
project. It differs from contracting out in
that the private sector provides the capital
asset as well as the services. The PFI differs
from other PPPs in that the private sector
contractor also arranges finance for the project.
Risk Mitigation (PFI)
Under the most common form of PFI, the private
sector designs, builds finances and operates
(DBFO) facilities based on output
specifications decided by public sector managers
and their departments. Such projects need to
achieve a genuine transfer of risk to the private
sector contractor to secure value for money in
the use of public resources before they will be
agreed. The private sector already builds most
public facilities but the PFI also enables the
design, financing and operation of public
services to be carried out by the private sector.
Risk Mitigation (PFI)
Under the PFI, the public sector does not own an
asset, such as a hospital or school but pays the
PFI contractor a stream of committed revenue
payments for the use of the facilities over the
contract period. Once the contract has expired,
ownership of the asset either remains with the
private sector contractor, or is returned to the
public sector, depending on the terms of the
original contract.
Managing Risk Through Incentivisation
  • Types of Incentivisation
  • Liquidated Damages
  • Performance Bonds
  • Parent Company Guarantees
  • Long-Stop Date
  • Bonus Payments

L6-13 Strategic Public Sector Programme
Session Five
Learning Objectives
2.3 Critically assess existing financial and
management information against the need for
available information spend with each
contractor information on specific contracts
spend against plan milestone information
variations of cost and time management of
disputes and claims 2.4 Analyse
client-contractor relationships where the
requirement cannot be clearly specified in
advance the need for senior level involvement
by the client, contractor and other
participants frequent and structured
interaction between client, contract manager and
contractor project manager and other relevant
levels the provision of financial and
management information appropriate to each level
of interaction in a timely manner
Financial and Management Information
Information Need vs. Information
Availability Types of Financial and Management
Information spend with each contractor
information on specific contracts spend against
plan milestone information variations of cost
and time management of disputes and claims
Financial and Management Information
  • To achieve the optimum project best value for
    money (VFM) key project stakeholders and sponsors
    need to review and act on the most appropriate
    cost information. Cost reports need to be
  • Frequent
  • Consistent
  • Accurate
  • Provide comprehensive detail of current status
    and trends
  • Include tables and graphics where appropriate

Financial and Management Information
  • Principal areas of cost management
  • Project scope
  • Design
  • Commitments
  • Contracts (including contractor spend)
  • Materials
  • Contingency
  • Cash flow

Financial and Management Information
Contractor Spend Report One example of a
project cost report will invariably focus on
contractor spend. OGC recommend that this
associated report should provide an up-to-date
record of commitments and expenditure within
budgets. The objective of this control
information is the prevention of unexpected
over/under run costs. As such this should ensure
that all resultant transactions are Properly
recorded Authorised Decision making is
factually based and therefore justifiable.
Financial and Management Information
  • Contractor Spend Report
  • OGC suggest that cost reports should show the
  • Cost forecasts for each approval stage
  • Evidence of how costs achieve value for money
    e.g. most economically
  • advantageous price compatible with the specified
  • Provide an accurate and timely summary financial
    data that monitors
  • Financial transactions
  • Payments
  • Changes relating to the project

Financial and Management Information
Contractor Spend Report Example
Financial and Management Information
Spend vs. Plan Report
  • Cost control of projects includes monitoring cost
    performance that also takes into account the
    inevitable changes encountered in a dynamic
    project environment. The focus of the cost
    reporting and performance measurement discussed
    thus far has been via the use of variance cost
    analysis. Cost variance analysis does not
  • How much work has been completed
  • What the future expenses are likely to be
  • In order to more comprehensively assess the
    status of a project other variables can also be
  • 1. Planned Value (PV) - sum of all work, plus
    apportioned effort, scheduled to be completed
    within a given time period as specified in the
    original budget
  • 2. Actual Cost (AC) - actual expenditure incurred
    in a given time period
  • 3. Ea
About PowerShow.com