version 1.0– june 18, 2013 leveraging the texas project delivery framework and
TRANSCRIPT
Version 1.0– June 18, 2013
http://www.dir.texas.gov/management/projectdelivery/pages/overview.aspx
Leveraging the Texas Project Delivery Framework and Quality Assurance Team as
Resources For Project Success
State of TexasDepartment of Information ResourcesLeadership for Texas Government Technology
2
Topics Covered
Model for Project Delivery and Oversight
Components of the Model: Tools and Processes
Project Delivery Framework
Timeline for Framework Deliverable Submissions
Major Information Resource Project
Agency Project Management Practices
Quality Assurance Team (QAT)
Analysis of Project Overruns
Leveraging the Framework Tools and the QAT to Reduce Project Risks
State of TexasDepartment of Information ResourcesLeadership for Texas Government Technology
3
Model for Project Delivery and Oversight
Project Approval
Project Review and MonitoringQAT
QAT Project Portfolio
LEVELS
PROCESSES
Framework Business JustificationProject Planning, Solicitation and Contracting, Project
Implementation Benefits Realization
Initiation Plan Execute Control CloseoutPMI Model
STANDARD
State of TexasDepartment of Information ResourcesLeadership for Texas Government Technology
4
In a nutshell, the Framework is a….
-Guidance and a -Toolset
For IR Projects and Contracts
Establishes a consistent, statewide method for project selection, control and evaluation aligned with business goals and objectives
Shifts focus from technology details to prioritized business goals and outcomes
Requires involvement of agency heads and other executive leaders
Ensures a process to Justify a project, including alternative solutions
Plan a project
Outsource a project
Implement a project
Assess a project
What is the Project Delivery Framework?
State of TexasDepartment of Information ResourcesLeadership for Texas Government Technology
5
Use Framework Lifecycle with Various SDLC Methodologies
State of TexasDepartment of Information ResourcesLeadership for Texas Government Technology
6
Top Project Delivery Framework Misconceptions
Based on statewide perspective and observation
Misconception RealityFramework is set in stone Statewide change management mechanisms exist
Framework is the project management methodology Framework is a toolset
Project deliverables are documents only Project deliverables represent activities and outcomes
Framework or Quality Assurance Team dictates project management practices or outcomes
Agency defines project management practices and outcomes
Programs and projects are managed the same Whether to manage effort as program or project is a critical decision
Agency involvement with procurement projects is minimal
Agency drives business outcomes that involve procurement
State of TexasDepartment of Information ResourcesLeadership for Texas Government Technology
7
TAC Chapter 216: Project Management (PM) Practices
Agencies should:
Have project management practices that are documented, repeatable, and include a single reference source…to effectively apply use of the project management practices and components
Include a method for delivery of projects that solves business problems
Include a method for governing application of project management practices
Include a project classification method developed by DIR, the agency, or another source
Include a method to periodically review, assess, monitor, and measure the impact of the project management practices
Align PM practices with use of the Framework (agency can accommodate use of other frameworks)
State of TexasDepartment of Information ResourcesLeadership for Texas Government Technology
8
Quality Assurance Team (QAT)
QAT is comprised of three representatives-one from each of the following agencies: LBB, SAO, and DIR
QAT Functions: Monitors risks and performs oversight activities associated with the
development of major information resource projects (MIRPs)
Risk: Likelihood that a project will not deliver a quality solution based on the timeline, budget, and scope commitments made to legislature when submitting the Legislative Appropriations Request (LAR)
Approves projects before expenditure of appropriated funds based on analysis of project risks
Reports the status of MIRPs to state leadership
Determining the frequency of monitoring (monthly or quarterly)
Performs approval of contract amendments if project costs exceed 10% or original total budget
QAT can request detailed project information, Framework deliverable updates, audits, or assistance as necessary
State of TexasDepartment of Information ResourcesLeadership for Texas Government Technology
9
Review Definition of a Major Project
Major information resources project (MIRP) means (per TEX GOV’T CODE §2054.003 (10)):
(A) any information resources technology project identified in a state agency's biennial operating plan whose development costs exceed $1 million and that:(i) requires one year or longer to reach operations status;
(ii) involves more than one state agency; OR
(iii) substantially alters work methods of state agency personnel or the delivery of services to clients; OR
(B) any information resources technology project designated by the legislature in the General Appropriations Act as a major information resources project
Note:
The $1 million threshold includes agency FTE costs.
Use of the Framework is encouraged for non-major IR projects
State of TexasDepartment of Information ResourcesLeadership for Texas Government Technology
10
Functions Outside of QAT
Contract review and solicitation review: Major contract reviews are performed by the Contract Advisory Team (CAT)
Project management: All agencies are responsible and accountable for project management practices and outcomes
Technical assistance Note: The Department of Information Resources (DIR) provides
consultation services to agencies, while recognizing that agencies are ultimately accountable for project outcomes
State of TexasDepartment of Information ResourcesLeadership for Texas Government Technology
11
Submission Requirements Timeline
State of TexasDepartment of Information ResourcesLeadership for Texas Government Technology
12
Portfolio of QAT Projects: Number of Projects
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 201440
50
60
70
80
90
100
50
60
52
4648
52
55
74
89
Total Number of Projects (approximations)
State of TexasDepartment of Information ResourcesLeadership for Texas Government Technology
13
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 $-
$500,000,000.00
$1,000,000,000.00
$1,500,000,000.00
$2,000,000,000.00
$2,500,000,000.00
$3,000,000,000.00
$3,500,000,000.00
$772,100,000.00 $786,100,000.00
$1,044,000,000.00 $1,035,000,000.00 $1,050,000,000.00
$1,310,000,000.00
$1,500,000,000.00
$2,402,000,000.00
$2,900,000,000.00
Project Costs (approximations)Pr
ojec
t Cos
ts in
Bill
ions
of D
olla
rs
Portfolio of QAT Projects: Project Costs
State of TexasDepartment of Information ResourcesLeadership for Texas Government Technology
14
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 $-
$500,000,000.00
$1,000,000,000.00
$1,500,000,000.00
$2,000,000,000.00
$2,500,000,000.00
$3,000,000,000.00
$3,500,000,000.00
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Project Costs and Number (approximations)Project Cost # of Projects
Proj
ect C
osts
in B
illio
ns o
f Dol
lars
(Red
)N
umber of Projects
Portfolio of QAT Projects: Trends
State of TexasDepartment of Information ResourcesLeadership for Texas Government Technology
15
SAO Report 13-028: Analysis of QAT Projects
SAO Report 13-028/ March 2013Analysis of QAT Projects
Total Project Cost
Pro
ject
Sch
edul
e
Quadrant I: Over-budget and Over-schedule
Quadrant II: Within budget and Over-schedule
(Target) Quadrant III: Within budget and Within schedule
Quadrant IV: Over budget and Within schedule
3
12
Original budget/original schedule
2
4
13
9
5
11 1
8P18P2
6 7
10
Legend
Project which is within budget and within schedule
Project which is over budget and within schedule or within budget and behind schedule
Project which is over budget and behind schedule
State of TexasDepartment of Information ResourcesLeadership for Texas Government Technology
16
Reasons for Project Overruns As Cited By Agencies
SAO Report 13-028: Analysis of QAT Projects
Vendor negotiations and bidding process delays
Legislative requirements change and/or requirements not well defined/scope changes
Turnover in project management and other key staff
Cost and timelines were underestimated
Lack of management support/stakeholder expectations not managed/priorities within agency changed
Project objectives and roles and responsibilities not clearly defined or understood
State of TexasDepartment of Information ResourcesLeadership for Texas Government Technology
17
Other Factors
Failing to break large projects into smaller/manageable pieces
Relying on the Framework as a replacement for project management practices per TAC §216
Posting solicitations without effective project planning- divergence of contract management and project management
Initiating a major information resource project in a non-prescribed manner
Confusing QAT responsibilities with agency responsibilities for project activities or outcomes and decisions
Attempting to exceed project scope and quality expectations
Failing to communicate vendor performance issues that affect project outcomes
State of TexasDepartment of Information ResourcesLeadership for Texas Government Technology
18
Leverage Framework Tools and QAT to Reduce Risks
Reason for Project Overruns Tools Which Can Help Reduce Reasons/Risks Associated With Project Overruns
Vendor Negotiations and Bidding Process Delays Project Plan (incl. Supplemental Tools), Acquisition Plan, Co-Operative Contracts, Review Gate Approvals, Monitoring Reports
Legislative Requirements Change and/or Requirements Are Not Well Defined/Scope Changes
Iterative Development of Project Plan (incl. Supplemental Tools-Change Control, Risk Register, Quality Register), Software/System Requirements Templates
Turnover in Project Management and Other Key Staff
Prevention of turnover not directly applicable to Framework tools, however, Risk Register can help plan for these events
Cost and Timelines Were Underestimated Business Case/Workbook and Checklists, Monitoring Reports. Work Breakdown Structure, Scheduling Tool
Lack of Management Support/Stakeholder Expectations Not Managed/Priorities Within Agency Changed
Project Plan (incl. Supplemental Tools-RACI, Communications Register, Risk Register), Monitoring Reports
Project Objectives and Roles and Responsibilities Not Clearly Defined or Understood
Project Plan (incl. Supplemental Tools-RACI, Risk Register), Project Charter, Business Case/Workbook, Checklists, Review Gate Approvals
State of TexasDepartment of Information ResourcesLeadership for Texas Government Technology
19
Framework Main Page
Framework Website: Gateway For Information
State of TexasDepartment of Information ResourcesLeadership for Texas Government Technology
20
Resources
CONTACT INFORMATION FOR GENERAL QUESTIONS [email protected]
QUICK REFERENCE (WHAT’S REQUIRED TO BE SUBMITTED TO QAT?) Framework Quick Reference Link
WHAT IS THE STATEWIDE PROJECT DELIVERY PROGRAM? Statewide Project Delivery Program Link
WHERE CAN I FIND MORE INFORMATION ABOUT QAT? Link to QAT Publications Website