Projektværktøjsdagen, 2014

20. November 2014, Rapid Implementation of a PPM Tool, Thomas Røygaard

Thomas Røygaard

• Maersk Oil, IT PMO since 2013

• Portfolio Management in Region Hovedstaden & Post Nord

• Product Management & IT Management, TDC

• Head of PMO, Krak A/S

• Project Director, Devoteam

• Change Management, 2014

• PRINCE2 , 2012

• Scrum Master, 2012

• IPMA B, 2005

• Cand Merc, 1991

OPERATED PRODUCTION

557,000

boepd

MAERSK OIL GROSS ACREAGE

52,000

km2

OPERATED FIELDS

27

PROFIT IN 2013

1.0 billion USD

WORKFORCE IN 11 COUNTRIES

4,300

employees

Brazil

Maersk Oil – a global player

EOR Exploration Appraisal Development Primary production Mature field Abandonment

The value chain

Denmark

Qatar

UK

USA

Norway

Algeria

Kazakhstan

Angola

Kurdistan

Greenland

Abu-Dhabi

page 4

Background

• Introduction of a Project Management Framework 3 years ago – adoption is improving

• Until recently – lack of a common understanding of processes

• Bottom-up desire for tool support – a place to store data and reference models

Driving Forces for a new Portfolio Tool

• Federated IS organisation, with need for consolidated overview / reporting

• Transparency & Visibility

• Processes before Tools

When go was given – we needed the tool yesterday

• Tough deadlines, narrow scope, demand for “process adherence”

• No time for mistakes or time consuming RFP process, yet RFP was mandatory

• Aim for 80 / 20 implementation at time of go live

Getting organised

• Assistance to avoid pitfalls

• Tried it before

• Know the market

• Got the abstraction level, when required –

• Respect my desire to lead and dare to challenge

• Vendor Identification

• Cloud vs. On Premise

Approach Project Execution

page 9

Time box approach to avoid delay accumulation

Shortlist 6 vendors for RFP. Evaluate and reduce to 2-3 vendors for workshops.

An 80% solution match being executed is better than a 100% match not reaching target in 2014.

Support from experienced consultants in formulating requirements, defining evaluation criteria, conducting evaluation workshops and planning / executing implementation.

Basic Principles

Time Boxes High Level Milestones Due Date

Box 1: Design Processes, identify Solution Shortlist Vendors Run “RFP” + Workshops Vendor Selection approved by StC

Ultimo Q2 Ultimo Apr. Week 25 (Jun.) Week 28 (Jul.)

Box 2: Implement Solution Finalise Contract Implementation Analysis Solution Online

Ultimo Q3 Ultimo Aug. Ultimo Sept. Ultimo Sept.

Box 3: Run Solution & Process Load CPH data + run process Load BU data + run process

Ultimo Q4 Ultimo Oct. Ultimo Nov.

Fast tracking the RFP Process…

page 10

1. Inspired by cross referencing Gartner Group and Forrester Research material.

2. High Level Requirement Spec.

3. Demo 4 scenarios in a workshop

RFP

for

PPM Solution

PPM

# Category Vendor 1 Vendor 2 Vendor 3 Vendor 4 Weight Vendor 1 Vendor 2 Vendor 3 Vendor 4

1 Application Functionality & Capability

1,1Did the product demonstrate the required project, portfol io and work

management functional i ty? 4 4 4 5 10 40 40 40 50

1,2 Does the product have the required Reporting Capabi l i ties 4 4 5 5 10 40 40 50 50

1,3Are the reporting options flexible enough to be done without IT

support2 5 3 4 10 20 50 30 40

1,4 Does the Product have the des ired workflow Capabi l i ties 3 2 3 5 10 30 20 30 50

1,5 Are workflow easy to create and configure - without programming 2 3 2 4 10 20 30 20 40

1,6 Is the product genera l ly easy to use and navigate? 2 4 3 5 10 20 40 30 50

0 0 0 0

2 Ease of Configuration & Maintenance

2,1Is the product easy to implement and configure, as the project,

portfol io and work management needs change and grow1 4 4 5 15 15 60 60 75

2,2 Is the product easy to upgrade? 2 5 4 5 5 10 25 20 25

3 Implementation Approach

3,1Does the product enable the team to be up and running very quickly?

– Phase 1 = less than 4 month2 5 4 5 2 4 10 8 10

3,2 Is there an option to s tart smal l and grow? 4 5 5 5 2 8 10 10 10

3,3 Is there comprehens ive product tra ining readi ly ava i lable 3 5 5 5 3 9 15 15 15

3,4 Implementation Partner capabi l i ty 4 3 3 3 3 12 9 9 9

4 Completeness of Vision & Product roadmap

4,1Does the product have a past track record and a future plan that

indicates that the product i s a future proofed investment2 4 4 5 10 20 40 40 50

Totals 500 248 389 362 474

100% 50% 78% 72% 95%

oneIS PPM Solution - Vendor Assessment

Scoring the last 4 contestants

page 11

PPM

# Category Vendor 1 Vendor 2 Vendor 3 Vendor 4 Weight Vendor 1 Vendor 2 Vendor 3 Vendor 4

1 Application Functionality & Capability

1,1Did the product demonstrate the required project, portfol io and work

management functional i ty? 4 4 4 5 10 40 40 40 50

1,2 Does the product have the required Reporting Capabi l i ties 4 4 5 5 10 40 40 50 50

1,3Are the reporting options flexible enough to be done without IT

support2 5 3 4 10 20 50 30 40

1,4 Does the Product have the des ired workflow Capabi l i ties 3 2 3 5 10 30 20 30 50

1,5 Are workflow easy to create and configure - without programming 2 3 2 4 10 20 30 20 40

1,6 Is the product genera l ly easy to use and navigate? 2 4 3 5 10 20 40 30 50

0 0 0 0

2 Ease of Configuration & Maintenance

2,1Is the product easy to implement and configure, as the project,

portfol io and work management needs change and grow1 4 4 5 15 15 60 60 75

2,2 Is the product easy to upgrade? 2 5 4 5 5 10 25 20 25

3 Implementation Approach

3,1Does the product enable the team to be up and running very quickly?

– Phase 1 = less than 4 month2 5 4 5 2 4 10 8 10

3,2 Is there an option to s tart smal l and grow? 4 5 5 5 2 8 10 10 10

3,3 Is there comprehens ive product tra ining readi ly ava i lable 3 5 5 5 3 9 15 15 15

3,4 Implementation Partner capabi l i ty 4 3 3 3 3 12 9 9 9

4 Completeness of Vision & Product roadmap

4,1Does the product have a past track record and a future plan that

indicates that the product i s a future proofed investment2 4 4 5 10 20 40 40 50

Totals 500 248 389 362 474

100% 50% 78% 72% 95%

oneIS PPM Solution - Vendor Assessment

page 12

Maintaining the MasterPlan page 13

Masterplan

Request for Gate Passage

Monthly Status Reporting Portfolio Overview Every project in the Masterplan must submit a monthly status report in order to track portfolio performance.

Monthly Stage Gate Meetings Projects going through a gate: Status change; approvals, documentation, etc.

Quarterly Portfolio Review Revaluating the portfolio quarterly – measure “pipeline candidates” against existing projects.

Annual Masterplan creation Once a year the Masterplan for the coming year is established. It will partly consist of projects from current year’s plan, and partly from new candidates.

Preferred vendor identified – closing the deal ?

• Using a Maersk Contract Template – not the vendor’s

• Country of Law, Liabilities, SLA, Service Credits

• Price

Implementing in 5 weeks

• First Workshop on 24-25. Sept.

• Three iterative rounds @ one week each

• Configure / Test / Comment

• Copenhagen Pilot launched 5. November

• Doha Pilot launched 13. Nov.

• Aberdeen Pilot will launch 26. Nov.

• From Pilot to Operations mid December

• Portfolio Maintained & Tracked from 1. Jan. 2015

Key Learnings

• Know your processes before investing in tools

• Pick a tool which is good enough instead of searching forever for the best.

• Focus on key requirements and evaluate on scenario performance

• Time box your schedule

Thomas Røygaard Corporate IS PMO Manager Maersk Oil thomas.roygaard@maerskoil.com