Committee Projects Sub (Policy and Resources) Committee

Date 14 March 2018

Subject City of London Approach to Project Management

Report of Assistant Town Clerk & Cultural Hub Director

For Decision

Report Author Rohit Paul

Synopsis

This report provides an update of the work undertaken by the Corporate Programme Office (CPO) to improve project management procedures and practice across the organisation. It is proposed that:

Gateway 0 is refined via a new sign-off process to add projects to departmental business plans;

A Project Initiation Document (PID) is introduced at Gateway 0 to ensure projects are structured coherently with clearly identified key measures of success;

Gateways 1-2 are amalgamated with the outcome of obtaining an approved budget to further develop the project proposal to the next stage;

A dashboard cover sheet is attached to projects from Gateway 2 onwards (once combined) to provide a cumulative narrative throughout the process;

Gateway 7 is changed to a project closure option, whereby projects can be closed before completion at any stage in the process, if no longer considered viable.

Recommendations It is recommended that you:

Review the approach, raise any questions and approve the suggested amendments. Background

1. It is recognised by Members and Officers that the current approach to project management within the Corporation requires review and change. This is evident from issues identified within large and complex programmes of work undertaken by the City of London.

2. A programme of work is now ongoing to review the current procedures and address the issues identified.

Initial Work Completed

3. Initial work focused on consulting with officers across the organisation to identify areas for improvement. This included engagement with Project Managers and Chief Officers, as well as other service departments such as Procurement, Finance and Audit. A Project Management Board with cross-departmental representation was also established to provide strategic oversight for this programme of work.

4. Utilising the feedback acquired, the CPO grouped the key areas of focus thematically, establishing desired outcomes for this work programme. These were presented to Chief Officers and Project Sub Committee in November.

4.1 Project Management Control Providing strategic oversight to improve how we manage projects Mechanisms for recommending improvements

4.2 Record Keeping and Information Sharing Incorporating:

Filing and record keeping Information sharing

4.3 Finance, Ownership and Risk Incorporating:

Project ownership Financial ownership Financial reporting Risk reporting Cumulative reporting

4.4 Working practices, Gateway process & support systems Incorporating:

Gateway templates Project management support templates Project Vision and project management IT systems Procurement Best practice

4.5 Organisational Culture and Roles Incorporating:

Skillsets and training Early flagging and intervention Open working Trust/fear within governance Formulaic reporting

Issues

5. Feedback highlighted that many of the problems impacting projects could be negated by placing more emphasis on the early development stages. Subsequently this was deemed the most appropriate starting point for the programme of work. The issues identified include:

Uncertainty with the initial project design;

Unclear project aims;

Vague objectives which are not measurable;

Late or no engagement with other departments such as Procurement and Communications;

A lack of transparent and cumulative reporting to monitor changes in scope, design and cost throughout the process;

Ill-defined ownership and control structures.

Solutions

6. To rectify these problems, it was decided that the project initiation stage and Gateways 0-2 would be refined. The proposed changes and benefits include: 6.1 Project Initiation Document

Gateway 0 projects will be accompanied by a standardised PID (Appendix 1);

Introducing a PID will prove beneficial by providing a coherent and consistent structure to support officers in addressing key questions at an early stage, including the project aims and measurable objectives;

Moreover, it will encourage officers to engage with other departments earlier in the process and promote collaborative working, moving away from passive and reactive engagement;

It is also standard industry practice for project managers to complete documentation outlining scope and objectives at an early stage.

6.2 Departmental Sign-Off

The PIDs will require Chief Officer approval before entering departmental business plans at Gateway 0;

The relevant service committee will review business plans to ensure oversight of upcoming projects, however they will not be expected to review individual PIDs;

Upon inclusion in the business plan the proposal will proceed to Gateway 1;

This will allow for greater critique, providing opportunities for Members to track changes and suggest options for projects, at an earlier stage;

It will also place emphasis on greater departmental ownership, with the expectation that departments will review proposals before they enter the Gateway process, ensuring they are fit for purpose and relate to both the corporate priorities and service objectives.

6.3 Refinement of Gateways 1-2

It is anticipated that enhancements to the initiation stages will allow refinements to the Gateway procedure, initially with a proposed combination of Gateways 1 and 2;

This will promote a shift towards a more outcome focussed approach to the Gateway Process, which feedback has shown is currently viewed in terms of process, governance and committees, rather than being incremental in supporting delivery;

The intended outcome of Gateway 1 (when combined) will be to have an approved budget to further develop the project to the next stage;

Project managers will obtain an agreed budget for feasibility works at this stage via Member approval at Projects Sub-Committee, for a project proposal that has already been endorsed by the relevant Chief Officer, which aligns with the lead department’s business plan.

6.4 Dashboard Reporting

From Gateway 2 onwards (when combined), projects will be accompanied by a dashboard cover sheet (Appendix 2), which will stay with the proposal throughout the gateway reporting process;

This will provide a summary of the key information, capturing any changes to scope or costs, thereby providing Members with cumulative reporting until project closure;

Such changes will result in greater transparency and informed decision making, as at present reports only display information on the current status and requirements to reach the next stage, without showing wider changes since inception or the full project narrative;

Work is also ongoing to link these in digitally with the project management software already in use by project managers, to provide departments with the capacity to maintain an overview of their portfolios, via bespoke performance reports.

7. These proposals have been endorsed by both Chief Officers Group and Summit Group.

Project Closure

8. As part of the wider changes the project closure and evaluation process has been reviewed.

9. The following issues were identified with the current process:

There is no mechanism to track how many projects close at each Gateway stage;

The Gateway process currently operates in a linear fashion, whereby stages are routinely proceeded through until the project is completed;

It does not consistently function as a checkpoint to review progress and consider a range of options before progressing to the next stage, such as termination or reverting to a previous Gateway;

Lessons learned are captured at a departmental level rather than logged corporately, this makes it difficult to share best practice and areas for improvement consistently;

The approach to closing projects is not standardised across departments.

10. It is proposed that the current Gateway 7 is changed to a project closure option, which can be utilised to close projects at any stage in the process, both on completion or when no longer deemed viable, subject to Member approval;

11. Projects that have proceeded past the authority to start work stage will still be expected to produce an outcome report for evaluation. An amended outcome report template (Appendix 4) has been produced to evaluate progress against the aims agreed upon approval of starting work. The cover sheet will provide the cumulative project narrative. This report will be expected within six months of completion or upon final verification of accounts (whichever milestone is reached first).

12. Outcome reports will not be expected for projects closed prior to approval for authority to start work. Instead, recommendation and reasons for project closure will be clearly made within reports. The option appraisal stage already contains the option of ‘do nothing’ within the document.

13. The CPO have produced a project closure checklist to support officers in the transition from the project closure to business as usual. This is standard industry

practice. The checklist will ensure lessons learned are logged on project management software for all formally closed projects.

14. The new outcome report and changes outlined will be piloted with project managers from April.

15. Benefits of these proposed changes will include:

Collation of a corporate lessons learned log and the ability to share best practice;

Central oversight of common themes and the capacity to submit trend analysis summary reports to Members for review;

Revised project closure procedure with clear expectations of what project managers are expected to complete during the final transition;

Standardised closure procedures across departments;

Opportunities to review progress and consider closing projects at each checkpoint in the Gateway Process if necessary;

Provision of a source for benchmarking and best practice for project managers to refer to when working on similar projects.

Other Work

16. Other work completed includes a review of the current project management training provision (delivered internally) in partnership with Learning and Development. Feedback has shown that the current training offer is too generic. The course is being updated to increase its relevance to the Corporation’s internal governance models and procedures. Other departments have contributed to the content where applicable. This has been supplemented by web based training guidance for the project software.

17. The Corporate Strategy & Performance team are working with the CPO to establish a process for corporate prioritisation of potential work streams. This will involve the development of a strategic scoring matrix tool to assess organisational capacity to deliver potential projects. Doing so will lead to a more efficient way of working, allowing for earlier opportunities to stop projects, before a significant amount of time and resource have been committed, whilst ensuring they relate to the corporate priorities.

Proposed Next Steps

18. The introduction of PIDs and the dashboard cover sheet will require complementary changes to the Gateway 1 template to prevent duplication. The report template has been amended and attached at Appendix 3.

19. Subject to approval these changes will be implemented from April. Guidance documentation will be made available to Project Managers for all changes.

20. Upon completion of the enhancements to the early development stages, the CPO will continue to work through the key areas of focus, including a review of the next step in the Gateway Process (options appraisal).

Appendices

Appendix 1 Project Initiation Document

Appendix 1- Project Initiation Document

Project identifier

[1] Unique Project Identifier A unique project number will travel with the project, and will

incorporate a Department lead, within.

[2] Project Name A consistent project name which will not change over the

project lifetime (without written notice within a report).

[3] Programme Affiliation

(if applicable)

Can this activity be considered as part of a wider programme

of similar work?

Ownership

[4] Chief Officer has signed

off on this PID

Confirmation of having read and agreed with the content of

this PID.

[5] Senior Responsible

Officer

Senior Officer responsible and accountable for this project’s

activities, benefits and delivering change.

[6] Project Manager Day to day manager of the project.

Description and purpose

[7] Project Mission statement / Elevator pitch

Describe the activity or change you want to enact, concisely in less than 200 characters.

Consider; what is the key message you would convey when describing this project.

[8] Definition of Need: What is the problem we are trying to solve or opportunity we are trying

to realise (i.e. the reasons why we should make a change)?

A description of the underlying issue (or issues) which this project will aim to change.

[9] What is the link to the City of London Corporate plan outcomes?

Delete those which don’t apply, leave in those outcomes that do(list to be added below)

[

[10] What is the link to the departmental business plan objectives?

Objectives this project is linked to, and a short narrative (max 4 lines) on how will it help us

achieve them.

[11] Note all which apply:

Officer:

Project developed

from Officer initiation

Y/N

Member:

Project developed from

Member initiation

Y/N Corporate:

Project developed as

a large scale

Corporate initiative

Y/N

Mandatory:

Compliance with

legislation, policy and

audit

Y/N Sustainability:

Essential for business

continuity

Y/N Improvement:

New opportunity/ idea

that leads to

improvement

Y/N

Project Benchmarking:

[12] What are the top 3 measures of success which will indicate that the project has achieved

its aims?

<These should be impacts of the activity to complete the aim/objective, rather than ‘finishes

on time and on budget’>

Appendix 2 Project Dashboard Cover Sheet

Appendix 3 Amended Gateway 1/2 Template

Appendix 4 Revised Project Closure Report

Appendix 5 Work Programme

1)

2)

3)

[13] Will this project have any measurable legacy benefits/outcome that we will need to

track after the end of the ‘delivery’ phase? If so, what are they and how will you track them?

(E.g. cost savings, quality etc.)

<Consider how you will measure these at project closure, and build those measures into your

project design>

[14] What is the expected delivery cost of this project (range values)?

Lower Range estimate:

Upper Range estimate:

[15] Total anticipated on-going revenue commitment post-delivery (lifecycle costs)[£]:

<Consider if we build a new building or create a system, has this been planned into

departmental maintained and upkeep cost profiles> [16] What are the expected sources of funding for this project?

Cyclical works, Departmental risk, City Cash, External funding etc.

Have these been confirmed as available to use for this activity?

[17] What is the expected delivery timeframe for this project (range values)?

Are there any deadlines which must be met (e.g. statutory obligations)?

Lower Range estimate:

Upper Range estimate:

Critical deadline(s):

Project Impact:

[18] Will this project generate public or media impact and response which the City of London

will need to manage? Will this be a high-profile activity with public and media momentum?

[19] Who has been actively consulted to develop this project to this stage?

(Add additional internal or external stakeholders where required)

Chamberlains:

Finance

Officer Name:

Chamberlains:

Procurement

Officer Name:

IT Officer Name:

HR Officer Name:

Communications Officer Name:

Corporate Property Officer Name:

External

[20] Is this project being delivered internally on behalf of another department?

Supplier Department:

Client Department:

Appendix 2 – Dashboard Cover Sheet

[1] Ownership

Project Number: Report Date:

Project Name:

Programme Affiliation (if applicable):

Project Manager:

Next Gateway to be passed:

[2] Project Brief

Project Mission statement: Brief description of activity (PID)

Definition of need: What issue are we trying to solve or opportunity realise (PID)

Key measures of success: 1-3 qualitative/quantitative (not, on time/budget) (PID)

1)

2)

3)

[3] Highlights

Finance:

Total anticipated cost to deliver [£]: (Current Range)

Total anticipated on-going commitment post-delivery [£]: (Current Range)

Programme Affiliation [£]: (If applicable) What is the estimated total programme

cost including this project:

Currently

Approved [£]

Spent/

Committed [£]

New requests [£] Variance [£]

£a £b £c £c

Previous estimate

to complete all

other works [£]

n/a New estimate to

complete all

other works [£]

Variance [£]

£d £f £g

Previous total

(all works) [£]

Spent/

Committed [£]

Revised total

(all works) [£]

Variance [£]

£a+d £b £c+f £(c+f)-(a+d)

Headline Financial changes:

Since ‘Project Proposal’ (G2) report:

▲◄►▼ [£approved budget at G2] + short explanation of any change

s to next gateway, max 4 lines

Since ‘Options Appraisal and Design’ (G3-4) report:

▲◄►▼ [£approved budget at G3-4] + short explanation of any change

s to next gateway, max 4 lines

Since ‘Authority to start Work’ (G5) report:

▲◄►▼ [£approved budget at G5] + short explanation of any change

s to next gateway, max 4 lines

Risk:

Risk: Reputational, public/stakeholder impact: (PID)

Overall RAG rating: Red/Amber/Green

Previous RAG rating: Red/Amber/Green (from last committee report)

[4] Decisions and Delegated Authority

Key decisions taken in Service or other Committees relevant to this projects

development and delivery (where decision is an addition or change from a

gateway paper as presented at the time).

Key decisions taken outside of Committee, since last report. (If applicable)

[5] Narrative and change

Date and type of last report:

Last report made to Members

Key headline updates and change since last report.

Short 2 paragraphs max description

Headline Scope/Design changes, reasons why, impact of change:

Since ‘Project Proposal’ (G2) report:

change + short explanation, max 4 lines

Since ‘Options Appraisal and Design’ (G3-4 report):

change + short explanation, max 4 lines

Since ‘Authority to Start Work’ (G5) report:

change + short explanation, max 4 lines

Timetable and Milestones:

Expected timeframe for the project delivery: (Current Range)

Milestones: Top 3 delivery and planning milestones (upcoming)

1)

2)

3)

Are we on track for this stage of the project against the plan/major milestones?

Y/N

If not, what has caused this and what officer action has/is being taken?

Are we on track for completing the project against the expected timeframe for

project delivery? Y/N

If not, what has caused this and what officer action has/is being taken?

Risks and Issues

Top 3 risks: (things that have not come to pass)

Risk description

Risk description

Risk description

See ‘risk register template’ for full explanation.

Top 3 issues realised (risks which have come to pass):

Issue Description Impact and action taken Realised Cost

Has this project generated public or media impact and response which the City of

London has needed to manage or is managing? If so what and how?

Appendix 3 – Amended Gateway 1/2 Template

Committees: Corporate Projects Board [for information]/[for decision] Projects Sub [for information]/[for decision] Delete and replace with 'Chief Officer' if approval at that level e.g. if ringfenced fund project

Dates:

Click here to enter

a date. Click here to enter a date.

Subject: Project Title

Gateway 1&2 Project Proposal Choose an item.

Report of:

Choose an item. For Decision

Report Author: Insert report author name here

NOT FOR PUBLICATION By virtue of paragraph(s) Type paragraph number(s) here of Part I of Schedule 12A

of the Local Government Act 1972.

PUBLIC Delete as appropriate

Recommendations

1. Next steps and Requested decisions

Approval track: Choose an item.

Next Gateway: Choose an item.

Next Steps:

Requested Decisions:

2. Resource requirements to reach next Gateway

Item Reason Funds/ Source of Funding

Cost (£)

Total

3. Governance arrangements

Select Service Committee responsible

Name of Senior Responsible Officer and their role

Select whether a project board is appropriate. If it is not, provide a sentence explaining why not

Guidance on project boards and other governance arrangements can be found in the Project Toolkit

Project Summary

4. Context Use numbered short paragraphs

Very short description of the current position and why change is necessary

5. Brief description of project

Use numbered short paragraphs

Very short description of the proposed project and why it is being brought forward at this time

6. Consequences if project not approved

Use numbered short paragraphs

Set out the consequences and/or risks that would need to be managed if the project is not approved and the mitigation measures required

7. SMART Objectives Highlight a few objectives that fit these criteria:

Specific – target a specific area for improvement.

Measurable – quantify or at least suggest an indicator of progress.

Assignable – specify who will do it.

Realistic – state what results can realistically be achieved, given available resources.

Time-related – specify when the result(s) can be achieved

8. Key Benefits The positive outcomes, quantified and quantified, that a project is being undertaken to deliver and justify the investment.

You will assess whether these key benefits have been realised in the Outcome Report

9. Project category Choose an item.

10. Notable exclusions Numbered points

Options Appraisal

11. Overview of options

Numbered list format

List the options that will be explored

Project Planning

12. Delivery Period and Key dates

Overall project: 12 months, completion before October 2016

Key dates: list key project dates

Other works dates to coordinate: if these works are likely to coincide with other works how they will be coordinated to minimise disruption. If there are none, state ‘none’.

13. Risk implications Overall project risk: Choose an item.

Update to a standard format of presentation with optional standardised risk register as an annex, to be introduced Summer 2018

14. Stakeholders and consultees

Use numbered points here

Early assessment of the key people who will need to be consulted during the evolution of the project (internal and external)

Please state whether an Equality Impact Assessment will be undertaken for the project and when the results will be reported.

Resource Implications

15. Total estimated cost

Likely cost range: Anticipated lifetime cost to deliver this project. Can be presented as a range.

16. Funding strategy

Choose 1:

Choose an item.

Choose 1:

Choose an item.

Funds/Sources of Funding Cost (£)

Total

List all potential sources of funding for the whole project, not just to get to the next gateway

Comment on affordability and competing demands for funding sources.

17. Investment appraisal

2 sentences maximum

Confirm which investment appraisal methodology will be carried out

to compare the options. If none, explain why.

18. Procurement strategy/Route to Market

Complete this section in consultation with City Procurement for advice on alternative procurement options for the project

City Procurement can also advise on the best route to market e.g They can also identify who else is/will be procuring a similar product/service and help get you better value for money.

19. Legal implications Use numbered points here

List key legal implications in consultation with the Comptroller & City Solicitor’s department. If there are none, state ‘none’.

20. Corporate property implications

Use numbered points here

List key corporate property implications, in consultation with the City Surveyor’s Corporate Property team and liaise with the City Surveyor Facilities Management team to identify if there are any overlaps win scope with the current backlogs/future maintenance and repair works.

Please state the nature and the value of the potential overlap in works in numerical and descriptive terms

If there are none, state ‘none’.

21. Traffic implications Use numbered points here

List key traffic implications. If there are none, state ‘none’.

22. Sustainability and energy implications

Use numbered points here

For any retrofit projects that are over £50k please consult with the City Surveyor’s Energy team: Energy.Team@cityoflondon.gov.uk

23. IS implications Use numbered points here

List key IS implications in consultation with the Chamberlain’s IS team. If there are none, state ‘none’.

24. Equality Impact Assessment

Select one of the following options:

An equality impact assessment will be undertaken

An equality impact assessment will not be undertaken

25. Data Protection Impact Assessment

Projects which process (use or store) personal data (i.e. information relating to an identifiable living individual) require a Data Protection Impact Assessment where there is a high risk to the privacy rights of the individuals under the General Data Protection Regulation. Guidance as to when an Assessment is required is available here and you can obtain further advice from the Information Compliance Team (information.officer@cityoflondon.gov.uk)

Select one of the following options:

The risk to personal data is high and a data protection impact assessment will be undertaken

The risk to personal data is less than high or non-applicable

and a data protection impact assessment will not be undertaken

Appendix 4 – Revised Project Closure Report

Committees: Corporate Projects Board [for information] Projects Sub [for information]/[for decision] Service Committee [for information]/[for decision]

Dates:

Click here to enter a

date.

Click here to enter a

date.

Subject: Project Title

Outcome Report Choose an item.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION By virtue of paragraph(s) Type paragraph number(s) here of Part I of Schedule 12A

of the Local Government Act 1972.

PUBLIC Delete as appropriate

Summary

[S1] Key conclusions Including a summary of how fully the main objectives and claimed benefits were realised,

reasons for any variance, and an assessment (based on these facts plus a comparison of

the estimated NPV calculations and the actual figures recorded since the project began)

of whether the project represented good value for money.

[S2] Key Learning and Recommendations A high-level summary of the main learning, and recommendations made for the future

similar projects.

[S3] Decisions required If any decisions are required as part of this report note them here. Else,

Members are asked to approve the content of this Outcome Report, and that the Project

will be closed.

Main Report

Design & Delivery, Variation and Value:

Design & Delivery Review-

[1] Design into Delivery Did the Design of the project adequately prepare for

the Delivery of the project? If not, what elements could

have been better designed?

[2] Options appraisal Did the option chosen allow the project to meet the

project’s objectives and provide long term value?

Were any compromises or changes made against the

options approved (i.e. Scope or time changes)?

[3] Procurement Route If services were procured, what was/were the method(s)

used to procure them? (framework, open tender etc.)

Did this work or were revisions required.

[4] Skills base Did the City of London project team have the required

skills and experience to deliver the project? Were

external resources or training required, or new staff

brought in?

[5] Stakeholders Were stakeholders engaged and managed well, were

they satisfied with the conclusion?

[6] Closing RAG rating

Project Risk

Assessment

High/ Med / Low

Project RAG rating Red/Amber/Green

[7] Positive reflections What worked well within the design and delivery

arrangements.

[8] Improvement reflections What didn’t work so well within the design and delivery

arrangement.

Variation Review- [9] Assessment of project against key

milestones

Please provide a short assessment of progress against

key milestones, during the project’s design and delivery.

[10] Assessment of project against Scope Please provide a short assessment of Scope changes,

during the project’s design and delivery.

[11] Change Were changes required to this project (post Authority to

Start Work) and were the mechanisms used effective to

enable this to occur?

What were the impact of the changes?

[12] Risks and Issues Did identified risk occur, if so what was the effect?

Did unidentified risks occur, what were their impact?

[13] Transition to BAU Did the project have a clear plan for transfer to

operations / business as usual? Did this work well?

Value Review

[14] Budget

At Authority to

Start work (G5)

At Completion

Fees £ £

Works £ £

Staffing £ £

Other* £ £

Total £ £

*If ‘Other’ provide a brief note on the contents

Please confirm whether or not the Final Account for this

project has been verified. *

*Please note that the Chamberlain’s department

Financial Services division will need to verify Final

Accounts relating to medium and high-risk projects

valued between £250k and £5m and all projects valued

in excess of £5m.

[15] Investment If this project was an invest to save or revenue

generating opportunity, what were the expected returns

(At Authority to start work stageG5)?

What returns have been made so far, are these in line

with initial expectations?

[16] Assessment of project against key

measures of success

Did the project deliver against its key measures of

success?

[17] Assessment of project against SMART

Objectives

Did the project deliver against its SMART targets?

[18] Key Benefits realised Have the Key Benefits been realised?

Lessons Learned and Recommendations

Lessons Learned- [19] General Purpose Review Are there any points of learning or improvements we can learn from

this project?

If the organisation attempted to deliver something similar what

missteps could be avoided, or efficiencies realised?

[20] Learning How will learning from this project be shared?

Recommendations- [21] Recommendations Are there any recommendations that could be made to aid the

process of designing and delivering future similar projects?

[22] AOB Any other points of note that should be recorded.

Decisions required If any decisions are required in addition to the approval of this outcome report please describe

them here:

Appendix 5 – Work Programme

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP

GATEWAY REVIEW

GENERAL

2018 - Q1 2018 - Q2 2018 - Q3

DRAFT G1-2 GUIDANCE

WRITE NEW PM TRAINING

ONLINE PROJECT VISION TRAINING

AMEND G1-2 SRG

MEMBER APPROVAL (PSC)

NEW G1-2 PILOT

G3-4 REVIEW

G5 REVIEW

G6 REVIEW

COCO

NEXT PMTRAINING

SUMMIT GROUP

PROJECT CLOSURE

PID/COVER SHEET ROLLOUT

AMEND G7 TEMPLATE

NEW G7 PILOT

FINANCE TRAINING SUPPORT

RISK REVIEW

PROJET VISION UPGRADES