Agenda item

To receive a presentation on project management and ‘RAG’ statuses.

Ian Hirst (Head of Digital Services and Communications) and Michael Josh (PMO Lead and Project Manager) provided a verbal update, illustrated by a visual presentation, which included the following comments:

·         The Programme Management Office (PMO) was responsible for:

o   coordinating the various projects through standardised reporting;

o   providing prioritisation analysis requested by the Programme Board;

o   advising Project Leads on best practice; and

o   training officers in project management.

·         The PMO reported to the Programme Board consisting of the Directors, HR, Mr Hirst, Mr Josh and other Project Managers as appropriate. The Board met monthly, its remit included:

o   Agreeing project initiation;

o   Monitoring progress through standardised highlight reports;

o   Resource planning;

o   In-depth project review; and

o   Communication.

·         The PMO and Board did not micro-manage each project and did not change the scope of the project. Each project would have its own procedures for dealing with governance issues.

·         Potential new projects are presented to the Board through a ‘Gate-Zero Document’ which sets out a summary of the project and its potential impact. If initiated, the Board may then monitor the project depending on its risk factors, taking account of financial and reputational risks.

·         There were currently 25 projects being monitored by the Board – including external project such as Calverley Square, The Amelia Scott and Public Realm plus internal projects including Modern Ways of Working and New A/V equipment for the Council Chamber. There was a considerable amount of information being collated.

·         Standard reports contained the current Red/Amber/Green (RAG) status with a descriptive narrative, an outlook RAG status and the measures needed to achieve the outlook status. The reports also identified key milestones and a summary of the major risks.

·         RAG ratings were a common methodology representing the overall health of the project:

o   Green – the project was generally in good health and progressing on track

o   Amber – some issues were occurring but resolution was possible

o   Red – significant blocks had materialised and progress could not be made

·         Statuses were often more affected by the existence of effective management or mitigation plans rather than the content of any such plan. For example, If a project could demonstrate that its risks were being managed, even if those risks were great, the RAG status may be low.

·         Guidelines existed to ensure RAG statuses were applied consistently but there was no quantified standard, some personal interpretation may apply.

·         Project Leads, not the PMO, determined the RAG status of a project. Programme Board could challenge a status and make suggestions.

·         Project reports were a snapshot in time, there could be a lead time of 2-3 days to produce the reports.

·         The PMO offered best practice advice on project management and there were several methodologies available depending on the size and nature of the project, including:

o   A variant of the ‘Prince2’ model was commonly used

o   ‘RIBA Stages’ were usually used for construction projects

o   ‘Agile’ methodology was often used for digital projects

Discussion included the following points:

·         Project statuses confirmed that due process was being followed.

·         It would be for the Project Board to determine the accuracy and content of the items included on the RAG status, including whether there were sufficient mechanisms in place to manage identified risks.

·         The various stages of project planning were to ensure all aspects of the project were in place prior to commencement. The final gate of ‘go live’ was the end of the project stage. Delivery of the new service was usual business.

·         The Programme Management Office (PMO) does not determine the RAG status for a project – it would be for the Project Team (Project Manager, Scheme Promoter, Project Board etc.) to decide the RAG status.

·         Where a project was being reported as red without due explanation the PMO may seek further information. The Programme Board may challenge the status should it not match expectations.

·         Given the scale of some of the projects underway, consideration should be given to the employment of a Project Accountant.

·         There was a lack of member involvement in the governance process, members were asked to endorse projects with limited information and problems were only made public long after they arise. It was suggested that one of the Members be included on the Project Board for projects and that it should meet on a monthly basis.

·         The Programme Board did not publish details of projects – both current or those that had not cleared ‘Gate Zero’. A summary pack was sent to the Leadership Board but it only showed those that were reporting Amber or Red.

·         There were also ongoing projects that were too small to be monitored by the Programme Board. 

·         There was interest in knowing how many projects over the last 2 years that did not progress and in particular if that lack of progression was due to resource issues.

·         The number of projects stopped, aside from those agreed, was often a good indicator of the health of project management systems.

·         Determining whether a project was to be monitored by Programme Board was not always about financial risk. Reputational risk was also something that was important to consider, particularly with respect to GDPR compliance which also had significant financial risks.

·         Calverley Square project was already underway when the PMO was established.

·         A template business case existed that was used by scheme promoters to consider all the aspects of their Business case but it didn’t include any constraints or measures to what was acceptable or unacceptable.  Each Business case was considered on its own merits. 

·         Programme Board reports did not involve an Auditor.

·         It would be from the Programme Board to decide whether the PMO got involved with re-examining aspects of the Calverley Square scheme. 

·         Political risk was not a standard field on the report template but officers on the Programme Board would be attuned to any likely political risk that may be associated with a project. If a project was deemed to have political risk it would be for the Project Board to assess and if necessary refer it to the appropriate Committee.

·         It was for the Project Board to decide what information was disseminated to Councillors and in turn members of the public. 

·         There was concern that Members had little knowledge of the current list of projects currently underway, both generally and in totality, and in particular those with implications within their own areas of responsibility. Would like an action that would allow better access to this information.

·         Concern that there was a gap in the Governance process and requested that consideration be given to appointing somebody independent from the Cabinet that would be directly involved with the key projects – suggested that this should be a person from the Audit and Governance Committee.

·         Members should have sight of the 25 projects currently underway and that consideration be given as to the best way of achieving this.

·         Overview and Scrutiny Committee had the remit for full disclosure of all relevant information

·         Attention should be given to receiving project governance information and that it should be considered as a work programme item for the future.

RESOLVED –

1)    That the update be noted; and

2)    That officers be asked to consider how to improve access to project governance information, in particular:

a)    regular project status updates of all projects currently underway; and

b)    member representation on Programme Board meetings.