FOI under ACIC by€¦ · The level 2 maturity achieved by ACC across the Portfolio and Project...

Releas

ed by

ACIC

unde

r FOI

P3M3 Assessment ReportAustralian Crime Commission

December 2013

ii © 2013 KPMG, an Australian partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms

affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. KPMG and the KPMG logo are registered trademarks of KPMG International.

Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.

Inherent Limitations

This report has been prepared as outlined in the Scope Section. The services provided in connection with this engagement comprise an advisory engagement, which is not subject to assurance or other standards issued by the Australian Auditing and Assurance Standards Board and, consequently no opinions or conclusions intended to convey assurance have been expressed.

Any reference to ‘review’ throughout this report has not been used in the context of a review in accordance with assurance and other standards issued by the Australian Auditing and Assurance Standards Board.

KPMG employed appropriately qualified and experienced staff to perform the work in partnership with ACC staff, and their interpretation of the appropriate P3M3® standards to award a P3M3 rating for the Australian Crime Commission (ACC). The findings in this report are based on a qualitative study and the reported results reflect a perception of ACC but only to the extent of the sample surveyed, being ACC’s approved representative sample of management and personnel. Any projection to the wider management and personnel is subject to the level of bias in the method of sample selection.

No warranty of completeness, accuracy or reliability is given in relation to the statements and representations made by, and the information and documentation provided by ACC management and personnel consulted as part of the process.

KPMG has indicated within this report the sources of the information provided. We have not sought to independently verify those sources unless otherwise noted within the report.

KPMG is under no obligation in any circumstance to update this report, in either oral or written form, for events occurring after the report has been issued in final form.

The findings in this report have been formed on the above basis.

Third Party Reliance

This report is solely for the purpose set out in the Scope Section and for ACC information.

This report has been prepared at the request of the ACC in accordance with the terms of KPMG’ engagement letter/contract. Other than our responsibility to ACC, neither KPMG nor any member or employee of KPMG undertakes responsibility arising in any way from reliance placed by a third party on this report. Any reliance placed is that party’s sole responsibility.

Releas

ed by

ACIC

unde

r FOI


December 2013

iii © 2013 KPMG, an Australian partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms



Contents

1 Executive Summary 1 1.1 2012/13 Financial Year Assessment 1 1.2 Highlights Observed by P3M3 Assessment Team 2

2 Summary of Findings by Sub-Model 5 2.1 Background 5 2.2 Organisational Perspectives 5 2.3 Generic Attributes 6 2.4 Maturity Journey 6

3 Scope and Approach 13 3.1 Purpose 13 3.2 Scope 13 3.3 Approach 13 3.4 Report Structure 15

4 Detailed P3M3® Observations 16 4.1 Maturity Summary 16 4.2 Portfolio Management Maturity Description 17 4.3 Programme Management Maturity Description 27 4.4 Project Management Maturity Description 28

Appendix A: P3M3® Overview 38

Appendix B: Interview Details 43

Appendix C: Documents reviewed as part of the Process Review: 46

Releas

ed by

ACIC

unde

r FOI

Releas

ed by

ACIC

unde

r FOI


December 2013

2 © 2013 KPMG, an Australian partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms



1.2 Highlights Observed by P3M3 Assessment Team

This is the first externally rated ACC P3M3 assessment. A P3M3 Self Assessment Survey was utilised by ACC in 2011/12 and a comparison to the results of this survey are provided within the Maturity Journey in Section 2.3 of this report.

The level 2 maturity achieved by ACC across the Portfolio and Project Management sub models provides a sound basis for rapid improvement to a level 3 maturity assuming:

• A continued focus on bedding down and refining the Portfolio Management process via the Technology Governance Board, the Technology Governance Board Sub Committee and the Resource Management Committee;

• The continued emphasis on project delivery improvement, including governance arrangements; and

• The continued investment in Portfolio and Project Management frameworks, tools and support arrangements.

The ACC has been assessed as a Rating 2 in the Portfolio Management sub-model with the following key observations being made:

• The Technology Governance Board (TGB) and the TGB Sub-Committee acts as a Portfolio Board and ensures that the Information Branch change portfolio is effectively directed and prioritised according to numerous factors including strategic alignment, value focus, risk management and capacity.

• The Resource Management Committee (RMC) ensures tight resource and financial management across the portfolio, including initial costing analysis and fully costed business case approval.

• The ACC has established consistent reporting and control mechanisms across its projects. The ACC has its own centrally controlled portfolio and project management processes, and projects can flex within these processes to suit the circumstances. A project tailoring scale and guidance is also provided.

• Clear accountability exists for realising portfolio value and there is strong linkage between business operations via the Organisational Health Committee (OHC).

• Stakeholder Engagement and communications with internal ACC and external stakeholders is managed consistently and effectively.

• ACC has established sound mechanisms to support resource management via the TGB and RMC.

Given that a number of the practices for Portfolio Management are still relatively new within ACC, KPMG recommends that ACC continue to focus on reinforcing and building upon its existing processes (both for process perspectives and generic attributes) to achieve a maturity level 3 in Portfolio Management. It should be noted however, that ACC has the potential to continue its current maturity improvement momentum by creating stretch goals (Level 4) for the Organisational Governance, Financial Management and Stakeholder Engagement. It is recommended that these stretch goals be discussed further during the Capability Improvement Planning process.

Releas

ed by

ACIC

unde

r FOI


December 2013




A decision was made not to score the Programme Management Sub-model during the 2012/13 assessment as programme management practices are currently not employed within ACC. However, the following recommendations are made with regards to the adoption of programme management principles for major strategic change initiatives going forward.

• It is recommended that programmatic thinking is considered when initiating large strategic change initiatives within ACC. This may lead to such initiatives being run as strategic change programmes with benefits/value for money driving the design of step changes in capability and the design of the projects required (projects dossier) to deliver the capability over multiple years.

• It is recommended that a Programme Management framework be developed for the ACC, assuming that strategic change initiatives are to be invested in within upcoming years. This should include specific guidance on the governance arrangements and accountabilities that exist across the TGB, RMC, the Organisational Health Committee (OHC) and the Organised Crime Management Committee (OCMC). It would also involve a benefits driven integrated programme plan to drive delivery and operationalise new capability across ACC business as usual and operational projects.

ACC has been assessed as having a maturity rating of 2 for Project Management with the following key observations being made:

• Project Management has been embedded as a core discipline at ACC.

• All projects are directed by a Project Board including business, project and Information Branch representation at the executive level. The Project Board will make decisions at critical points throughout project life cycle and refer back to the TGB as required.

• Project Board members, project managers and teams with project responsibilities exhibit good project management knowledge, competencies and behaviours.

• Changes to approved projects are managed via a Change Management process including a Change Advisory Board (CAB).

• Project Status Reports are consistently used to provide assurance to Project Boards that projects are on track, and to provide information and guidance on dealing with issues and risks.

• Configuration management and release management is applied effectively and consistency within Information Branch projects.

• Benefits within the context of ACC projects is currently primarily focused around the achievement of fit for purpose products from projects.

• Business cases are instrumental during the project assessment and approval phases. and generally used as a source of truth and reference point during initial discussions for project decision making.

• Cost management at the project level is fully integrated with the organisation’s financial management functions.

• ACC is starting to leverage an extensive range of communications channels and techniques to deliver messages supported by corporate communications.

Releas

ed by

ACIC

unde

r FOI


December 2013




• Risk management is becoming an organisational process, with clear ownership for risk monitoring, management and assurance.

KPMG recommends that ACC continue to focus on reinforcing and building upon its existing processes (both for process perspectives and generic attributes) and embedding project management capability to achieve a maturity level 3 in Project Management. It should be noted however, that ACC has the potential to continue its current maturity improvement momentum by creating stretch goals for the Organisational Governance, Financial Management and Stakeholder Engagement. It is recommended that these stretch goals (Level 4) be discussed further during the Capability Improvement Planning process.

We outline the evidence and basis for this assessment in detail throughout this report.

Releas

ed by

ACIC

unde

r FOI

Releas

ed by

ACIC

unde

r FOI


December 2013




3 Scope and Approach

3.1 Purpose

The purpose of this assessment report is to:

• Document the 2012/13 ACC P3M3® Maturity Ratings; and

• Provide recommendations to support enhancing organisational maturity that strengthen Portfolio, Program and Project Management capability.

3.2 Scope

The P3M3® assessment covered the portfolio and project activities across the Information Branch portfolio within the ACC. This included sampling sufficient projects to create a representative sample set for the portfolio. Eleven individuals were interviewed during November 2013. Five individuals were interviewed for both Portfolio and Project P3M3 roles.

A decision was made not to score the Programme Management Sub-model during the 2012/13 assessment as programme management practices are currently not employed within ACC. However, recommendations have been made within this assessment report with regards to the adoption of programme management principles for major strategic change initiatives going forward.

3.3 Approach

3.3.1 Assessment Background

This P3M3® assessment has been triggered in response to AGIMO’s directive that agencies undertake P3M3 maturity assessments and plan for improvement of their capability to realise benefits from ICT-enabled initiatives.

3.3.2 Assessment Approach

The P3M3 assessment consisted of both a Process Assessment and an Application Assessment. The findings from both of these assessments form a basis for the current P3M3 Maturity Rating awarded to ACC.

The Process Assessment involved reviewing relevant ACC frameworks, standards, processes, strategies and reports/minutes at the Portfolio and Project Management levels. The review was designed to assess the ACC ability to manage its full portfolio, and the projects within it, according to its documented processes.

The Application Assessment involved interviewing a representative sample of individuals involved in the management of the Information Branch and numerous projects within the portfolio. This sample included individuals appointed to key roles including Technology Governance Board, Technology Governance Board Sub Committee and Resource Management Committee Members/Advisors, Project Sponsors and Project Managers. In total eleven individuals were interviewed, with five individuals being interviewed for multiple roles across the portfolio and project management sub-models.

Releas

ed by

ACIC

unde

r FOI


December 2013




ACC structures for managing major change activities are aligned to the P3M3 sub-models of Portfolio and Project Management. The interview plan was structured accordingly to maintain traceability to the P3M3 model while incorporating the way the ACC manages business investment initiatives.

This was achieved by:

• Mapping ACC roles and structures used to govern, manage and sponsor projects to their P3M3 equivalents, thereby identifying what P3M3 role(s) each individual fulfils.

• Structuring the interviews by the P3M3 sub-models of Portfolio and Project Management.

Note: The process assessment was carried out both prior to and during the interviews to enable validation of how the portfolio and projects are being managed based on interview findings.

3.3.3 Combined KPMG and ACC Application Assessment

The KPMG P3M3 Assessors (Ian McDermott) worked alongside the ACC Assessors ( and ) to carry out the application assessment interviews. The KPMG assessors worked in partnership with the ACC assessors to ensure consistency of approach and support/skills transfer of interview techniques and scoring the methodology. The involvement of the ACC assessors provided the opportunity for clear understanding and ownership of the assessment results and the areas for improvement by ACC.

s 47F s 47F

Releas

ed by

ACIC

unde

r FOI

Releas

ed by

ACIC

unde

r FOI


December 2013




4.2.2 Organisational Governance

Organisational Governance was assessed as having a maturity rating of 3 which implies that that “Centrally defined organizational controls are applied consistently to the portfolio(s), with decision-making structures in place and linked to organizational governance.”

4.2.2.1 Key Observations and Recommendations

Observations from the interviews were:

The Technology Governance Board (TGB) effectively operates as a Portfolio Board, focused on project prioritisation and selection. The TGB ensures alignment of all technology investments with the strategic objectives of the ACC by considering and prioritising new investment proposals resulting from the annual ACC technology investment round or draft business cases put forward by the Technology Governance Board Sub Committee (TGB. Sub Committee). The TGB provides recommendations to the Resource Management Committee (RMC) with regards to investment proposals. The RMC operates as the investment board for approval of resources for projects.

The TGB clearly maintains alignment of all project investments to the ACC Technology Vision Strategy, providing a clear forum for identifying opportunities for the ACC to maximise the utilisation and investment in technology.

The TGB is effectively supported by the TGB. Sub Committee to validate project proposals to support new ideas or to resolve an identified problems. The TGB. Sub Committee also prioritises proposals for TGB consideration.

A Technology Investment Process has been established to provide a consistent mechanism for raising and processing new ideas or issues. This process includes:

o An engagement process to validate the strategic outcomes of the proposed initiative, for carrying out an initial stakeholder analysis and for exploring initial solution options.

o An analysis process to further investigate the idea or problem and develop a recommended approach within a Project Proposal.

o A conceptual solution process to further develop the Project Proposal into a Draft Business Case.

Given the TGB and TGB Sub Committees where newly established during 2012/13, it is recommended that these portfolio management governance arrangements are further bedded down and refined during 2013/14. This should include tighter role clarity, especially for individuals who sit on both committees. It is also recommended that a more detailed supporting Portfolio Management process is developed.

Given the Technology Investment Process was newly introduced within 2012/13, it is recommended that the process is further bedded down during 2013/14, including training and support as required.

A Project Prioritisation process and tool have been developed and introduced to support project prioritisation and selection by the TGB Sub Committee and TGB. It is recommended that the process and tool are further bedded down and refined during 2013/14.

The establishment of a support function should be considered to further support the analysis and presentation of portfolio management information to both the TGB Sub

Releas

ed by

ACIC

unde

r FOI


December 2013




Committee and the TGB. This decision support function would be responsible for the creation of a Portfolio Management selection dashboard and provide a scrutiny and review function to the TGB and TGB Sub Committee. This support function could be established as part of a broader Portfolio Management Office.

It is recommended that programmatic thinking is considered when initiating large strategic change initiatives. This may lead to such initiatives being run as strategic change programmes with benefits/value for money driving the design of step changes in capability and the design of the projects required (projects dossier) to deliver the capability over multiple years.

It is recommended that a Programme Management framework be developed for the ACC, assuming that strategic change initiatives are to be invested within upcoming years. This should include specific guidance on the governance arrangements and accountabilities that exist across the TGB, RMC, the Organisational Health Committee (OHC) and the Organised Crime Management Committee (OCMC). It would also involve a benefits driven integrated programme plan to drive delivery and operationalise new capability across ACC business as usual and operational projects.

All developed portfolio and project documents are stored or referenced within a configuration management system (TRIM) with access by those with appropriate clearance.

4.2.3 Management Control

Management Control was assessed as having a maturity rating of 2 which implies that “There are pockets of portfolio discipline within individual departments, but this is based on key individuals rather than as part of a comprehensive and consistent organization-wide approach.”



The Technology Governance Board (TGB) effectively operates as a Portfolio Board, focused on project prioritisation and selection of initiatives and the ongoing monitoring of the progress of existing projects to ensure that the original business case remains valid.

It is recommended that a support function is established to enable the consistent gathering, analysis and reporting of progress information from all projects within the portfolio. This decision support function would be responsible for the creation of a Portfolio Management progress dashboard and for carrying out ‘What if analysis’ for any forecast project slippages or risks to identify knock on effects/impact across the portfolio and allow for pro-active decision making to be taken by the TGB. This tighter management of inter-dependencies across the portfolio will be a critical factor in portfolio maturity. This Portfolio Management Office would also provide a scrutiny and review function to the TGB. This support function could be established as part of a broader Portfolio Management Office.

It is also recommended that a detailed Portfolio Management monitoring and control process, including clear mechanisms for exception management and escalation, trend reporting, lessons learned reporting and portfolio change

Releas

ed by

ACIC

unde

r FOI


December 2013




management is developed and implemented including training and support as required.

4.2.4 Benefits Management

Benefits Management was assessed as having a maturity rating of 2 which indicates that “The development of the investment cycle will increase the awareness of the importance of identifying benefits and subsequently tracking whether they have been realized. However, the realization of benefits is still likely to be patchy, inconsistent and unmonitored.”



A mechanism for assessing strategic value/focus has been built into the portfolio prioritising criteria to be considered by the TGB when prioritising and selecting projects. It is recommended that the process and tool are further bedded down and refined during 2013/14.

It is recommended that the benefits realisation and management process is defined and implemented to ensure that benefits are clearly planned, actively measured, managed and owned including defining clear accountability for benefits realisation within portfolio roles. This will be particularly critical should programmatic thinking be considered with selected initiatives being run as strategic change programmes with benefits/value for money driving the design of step changes in capability over multiple years.

Dependencies between benefits should be actively identified and managed, especially across ACC operational units/projects. It will be important to identify benefit owners within business as usual areas/operational projects and ensure that benefits baselines and future targets are clearly identified and mechanisms for measurement are agreed and established as required.

It is recommended that a Benefits Realisation support function is established to manage benefits planning, realisation and reporting from a centralised whole of portfolio perspective. This would include a clear interface to the CFO for the realisation/harvesting of financial benefits and to the OCMC for the realisation/harvesting of business/operational benefits. This function would allow for the refinement of the benefits views within Portfolio Management selection and progress dashboards. This function would also provide a scrutiny and review function to the TGB, OHC, OCMC and to Project Boards from a benefits/value perspective. This Benefits Realisation support function could be established as part of a broader Portfolio Management Office.

4.2.5 Financial Management

Financial Management was assessed as having a maturity rating of 3 which implies that the “There are established standards for the investment management process and the preparation of business cases. Portfolio investment costs are monitored and controlled.”

Releas

ed by

ACIC

unde

r FOI


December 2013






The TGB and TGB Sub Committee ensures tight financial management across the portfolio, including initial costing analysis and fully costed business case approval. The TGB and TGB Sub Committee will typically analyse factors such as risks, benefits, finances and inter-initiative dependencies prior to making investment decisions for internal Information Branch initiatives not requiring additional resources or seeking approval from the RMC for broader initiatives or Information Branch internal initiatives requiring additional resources ($, human resources or facilities).

The TGB, the TGB Sub Committee and RMC ensures portfolio Financial Management in-line with the Commonwealth Government Financial arrangements and the annual budget cycle as well as the ACC Chief Executive Instructions.

Funding for the next stage of delivery for larger initiatives is typically released on the basis of reviews against agreed performance criteria. It is recommended that this practice is further bedded down and refined during 2013/14.

Via the TGB monthly meetings, a review process ensures that each initiative’s actual financial performance is in line with expectations and corrective actions taken when required. This financial review process should be documented within the Portfolio Management monitoring and control process as recommended within section 4.2.3.1.

Investment decisions ensure that initiatives are not started unless their contribution to the organisational objectives and priorities is explicit and aligned.

External financial risks appear to be monitored and evaluated as part of investment management processes. These risks are monitored through the use of Risk Registers and reporting.

Defined interface with the financial functions within the organisation is established and consistent across initiatives.

As ACC further embeds Financial Management and moves towards a level 4, it is important that full integration remains between the organisational and portfolio financial planning cycles and that financial controls are embedded within initiatives and integrated with organisational financial controls. It is also important that the financial oversight/focus of the portfolio is organisation-centric rather than project or programme centric i.e. focused on what the organisation needs rather than initiatives with valid/compelling business cases which are ICT/technology driven.

As ACC begins to move towards a maturity level 4 demonstrating embedded, consistent application of financial processes, with financial decision making being based on actual data and robust/trusted forecast data from initiatives, there is greater opportunity for ACC to flex its appetite for financial risk to better align the portfolio to meet organisational objectives, i.e. flex financial tolerances for some initiatives as long as the portfolio of initiatives balances financial risk.

Releas

ed by

ACIC

unde

r FOI


December 2013




4.2.6 Stakeholder Management

Stakeholder Management was assessed as having a maturity rating of 3 which implies that “There is a centrally managed and consistent approach to stakeholder engagement and communications used on the portfolio(s).”



An extensive range of communication channels and techniques are used to deliver messages including personal briefings, workshops, intranet communications and briefing documents.

Stakeholder identification and analysis covers internal and external groups, with information maintained centrally. This identification and analysis of stakeholders is supported by the processes defined by Corporate Communications.

Members of the TGB and Project Sponsors are generally engaged with and actively supporting communication activities and recognise the impact of effective stakeholder engagement on project outcomes.

In order to enable continuous improvement, the effectiveness of communications and stakeholder engagement should be measured and reported upon.

ACC could further improve their communication effectiveness by analysing stakeholder reactions and demonstrating proactive communications management to influence stakeholder attitudes and levels of support and engagement.

ACCs approach to analysing, segmenting and maintaining stakeholder perspective information could incorporate more sophisticated models and tools.

Consider implementing specific communications budgets for all projects going.

ACC could consider establishing a central stakeholder management function. This function would assist projects or programmes to establish tailored stakeholder engagement strategies in-line with Corporate Standards and taking account of engagement strategies and messaging from other initiatives within the Information Branch portfolio. This support function could be established as part of a broader Portfolio Management Office.

4.2.7 Risk Management

Risk Management was assessed as having a maturity rating of 2 which implies that the “There is generally a top-down approach to risk identification, focusing on major organizational initiatives, but some initiatives are increasingly carrying out bottom-up risk identification. However, these approaches are inconsistent, not particularly interrelated and often do not address the actual management of risks.”



Clear accountability and ownership of risks and evidence of appropriate actions being taken in risk registers related to project risks.

Risk analysis is conducted primarily from the perspectives of financials, stakeholders and legislative requirements at a project level. Moving forward ensure

Releas

ed by

ACIC

unde

r FOI


December 2013




risk analysis has a stronger and consistent focus on benefits and impact on business as usual at both the project and portfolio levels.

Consider implementing formal portfolio gate reviews driven by the TGB, to proactively assess and manage investment risk and make decisions based on their impact on the portfolio.

Now that a risk management process is defined, ensure that it is applied consistently and embedded at the portfolio and project levels. It should be continually reviewed by the Senior Risk Officer to ensure effectiveness of the process and continued linkage to the organisational risk management framework. The implementation of standard Risk templates and registers should be reinforced across all projects.

The techniques for assessing and evaluating risks could be developed to better utilise risk modelling and simulations, to support more informed decision-making.

Risk management could be further improved by a more balanced approach to opportunities as well as threats across the portfolio.

Appropriate inclusion of risk specialists and others where appropriate (e.g. business continuity, security, incident management, health and safety, environment, procurement) is an opportunity to strengthen risk management across the portfolio.

Stronger recognition of risks that are non-financial, for example reputation and relationships will enhance maturity of the Risk Management process.

4.2.8 Resource Management

Resource Management was assessed at having a maturity rating of 2 implying that ACC has “The organization has started to develop portfolio resource management processes and improve the identification and allocation of resources to specific initiatives. However, this is likely to be reliant on key individuals and does not assess the impact of resource allocation against the strategic objectives and priorities.”



ACC has established sound mechanisms to support resource management (capacity and capability) via the TGB with recommendations and approvals being sought by the RMC as required.

ACC, via the TGB and the RMC are attempting to better understand business demand for project resources and build appropriate resource pools. This practice should be embedded moving forward.

ACC actively leverages contractor resources to support and enhance internal capability. Continued efforts are being made to enhance the core skills of internal resources to support current and future project implementation.

Potential resource conflicts across initiatives are resolved by the TGB and TGB Sub-committee supported by the RMC on the basis of strategic priorities/value and levels of risk.

Releas

ed by

ACIC

unde

r FOI


December 2013




It is recommended that robust and consistent processes are implemented to track and measure resource utilisation and efficiency. This resource management process should be documented within the Portfolio Management monitoring and control process as recommended within section 4.2.3.1. ACC could consider establishing a central resource management function as part of a Portfolio Management Office.

It is recommended that a training strategy and career path is established focused around capability development within Project Management (and Programme Management when/if this is adopted as a practice). This should be facilitated by the provision of various mechanisms to support knowledge transfer and practical application including:

• classroom and e-Learning training courses • project management forums • induction and refresh sessions, and • ongoing coaching and mentoring provided by Project Specialists.

It is recommended that a 70:20:10 strategy is considered. (70% On-the-job Experience: 20% Coaching: 10% Classroom Training)

ACC should consider implementing resource management process improvements such as effective resource pool monitoring and management, consideration for both operational and initiative resource needs, return to business as usual arrangements and capability planning. These improvements should be embedded, maintained and further improved.

Whilst it is clear that performance management is consistent and embedded within ACC, the performance assessment of resources should be based on initiative delivery as well as individual and team performance.

4.2.9 Portfolio Generic Attributes Score

Overall maturity rating of 2 was provided.

4.2.9.1 Roles & Responsibilities

A maturity rating of 2 is defined as “Roles, responsibilities and competencies defined in some areas but not consistently across the organization.”

Key Observations and Recommendations were:

Terms Of Reference have been established for the TGB, TGB Sub Committee, RMC, OHC and OCMC.

It is recommended that centrally managed role definitions are established for all TGB, TGB Sub Committee and RMC members.

It is recommended that every SES officer has defined outcomes in their duty and accountability statements including the benefits realisation from projects and/or change programmes for which they are accountable. These should be continually reviewed by the ACC executive and ensure succession plans are in place for all key portfolio management roles.

Releas

ed by

ACIC

unde

r FOI


December 2013




4.2.9.2 Experience in Project Management

A maturity rating of 3 indicates that “Key individuals have practical delivery experience and track record”


ACC has highly experienced officers at all levels including TGB, TGB Sub Committee, RMC, OHC and OCMC.

4.2.9.3 Capability development

A maturity rating of 2 indicates that: “Generic training may be provided in key concepts, and there may be individuals undertaking qualification training” “Local sharing of knowledge may exist but mostly ad hoc.”


A comprehensive Portfolio, Programme (when relevant) and Project Management Training Strategy should be established at ACC, focused around building a Portfolio, Programme and Project Management capability.

Training provided should ideally be targeted for roles (TGB, Programme Manager, Project Sponsor/Board Member) and tailored for the ACC.

Coaching and mentoring should be provided focused on supporting practical application and capability development.

A Career Pathway should be established for Programme and Project Management underpinned by qualifications and length of experience.

A learning and knowledge/experience sharing culture should be established within ACC supported by Project Management forums and Communities of Interest, Lessons Learned Guides and information sessions.

While internal workshops are available to support staff, further value add workshops for executives should be developed and delivered focused on performance improvement.

Releas

ed by

ACIC

unde

r FOI


December 2013




4.2.9.4 Planning & estimating processes

A maturity rating of 2 implies: “Plans exist but are not underpinned by consistent development methodology, yet may still be effective locally” “Planning seen as activity tracking rather than proactive/forecasting” “Estimation is more “guestimation” and does not use standard techniques.”


Robust plans are used to underpin the establishment and control of all initiatives and hence the overall portfolio.

Initiative inter-dependencies are identified but do not appear to be managed consistently across the portfolio. Further develop processes for inter-dependency management.

Gather and utilise trend data to support the enhancement of estimating models for initiatives.

4.2.9.5 Information & documentation

A maturity rating of 3 maturity rating is defined as having: “Information has a refresh cycle or is regularly accessed” “Organization-wide information standards on confidentiality, availability and integrity” “Formal information release management procedures”.


ACC has a well defined Information Management Framework supporting multiple Acts, policies, strategies and guidelines.

Further develop trend analysis to identify improvement opportunities and decision making effectiveness.

4.2.9.6 Scrutiny & review

A maturity rating of 2 refers to “Local reviews, with some corrective actions undertaken within the group”


That most reviews appear to be focused on compliance rather than opportunities to improve.

The establishment of a support function should be considered to further support the analysis and presentation of portfolio management information to both the TGB Sub Committee and the TGB. This decision support function would provide a scrutiny and review function to the TGB and TGB Sub Committee. This support function could be established as part of a broader Portfolio Management Office.

ACC should look to encourage multiple opportunities to capture and share lessons learned including Lessons Learned Logs, Project Management forums and Communities of Interest, Lessons Learned Guides and information sessions.

Releas

ed by

ACIC

unde

r FOI


December 2013




4.3 Programme Management Maturity Description

4.3.1 Key summarised observations

A decision was made not to score the Programme Management Sub-model during the 2012/13 assessment as programme management practices are currently not employed within ACC.

The following recommendations are made with regards to the adoption of programme management principles for major strategic change initiatives going forward.

It is recommended that programmatic thinking is considered when initiating large strategic change initiatives with ACC. This may lead to such initiatives being run as strategic change programmes with benefits/value for money driving the design of step changes in capability and the design of the projects required (projects dossier) to deliver the capability over multiple years.

It is recommended that a Programme Management framework be developed for the ACC, assuming that strategic change initiatives are to be invested in within upcoming years. This should include specific guidance on the governance arrangements and accountabilities that exist across the TGB, RMC, the OHC and the OCMC. It would also involve a benefits driven integrated programme plan to drive delivery and operationalise new capability across ACC business as usual and operational projects.

A plan for establishing a resource pool of trained and experienced programme managers and business change managers would need clearly being developed by ACC to support future programmes.

Releas

ed by

ACIC

unde

r FOI


December 2013




4.4 Project Management Maturity Description

4.4.1 Key summarised observations

ACC has been assessed as having a maturity rating of 2 for Project Management.

Project Management has been embedded as a core discipline at ACC.

All projects are directed by a Project Board including business, project and Information Branch representation at the executive level. The Project Board will make decisions at critical points throughout project life cycle and refer back to the TBG as required.

Project Board members, project managers and teams with project responsibilities exhibit good project management knowledge, competencies and behaviours.

Changes to approved projects are managed via a Change Management process including a Change Advisory Board (CAB).

Project Status Reports are consistently used to provide assurance to Project Boards that projects are on track, and to provide information and guidance on dealing with issues and risks.

Configuration management and release management is applied effectively and consistency within Information Branch projects.

Benefits within the context of ACC projects is currently primarily focused around the achievement of fit for purpose products from projects.

Business cases are instrumental during the project assessment and approval phases. and generally used as a source of truth and reference point during initial discussions for project decision making.

Cost management at the project level is fully integrated with the organisation’s financial management functions.

ACC is starting to leverage an extensive range of communications channels and techniques to deliver messages supported by corporate communications.

Risk management is becoming an organisational process, with clear ownership for risk monitoring, management and assurance.

4.4.2 Organisational Governance

Organisational Governance has been assessed as having a maturity rating of 3 implying that “Centrally defined organizational controls are applied consistently to all projects, with decision-making structures in place and linked to organizational governance.”



All Projects are approved at the Executive level, either through the TGB operating as the Portfolio Board for Information Branch internal initiatives or via the RMC based on a recommendation from the TGB. This joint decision making process across business and Information Branch ensures balance between organisational performance and the change impact and assesses the impact on current initiatives.

Releas

ed by

ACIC

unde

r FOI


December 2013




All projects are directed by a Project Board including a Project Sponsor and a Business Owner at the executive level. The Project Board will make decisions at critical points throughout project life cycle and refer back to the TGB as required.

Project Board members, project managers and teams with project responsibilities exhibit good project management knowledge, competencies and behaviours.

Decisions on priorities and major conflict resolution are resolved by reference to the TGB.

Changes to approved projects are managed via a Change Management process including a Change Advisory Board (CAB).

Decision-making effectiveness is not formally reviewed on regular basis to allow for continuous improvements. However, reviews are carried out as of Project Implementation Review process at the end of projects.

Project performance is not comprehensively measured against historic trends and the impact of projects on business performance is not always fully understood.

It is recommended that mechanisms for assessing decision making effectiveness throughout the project lifecycle are introduced and supported by a support function including trend analysis and targeted continuous improvement. This support function could be established as part of a broader Portfolio Management Office.

4.4.3 Management Control

Management Control has been assessed as having a maturity rating of 2 which implies that “The concepts of project management will have been grasped by the organization, and there may be local experts, such as experienced project managers, working on key projects.”



Project boards show high degree of engagement with active decision making focused around setting strategies to improve delivery when required. Board members have clarity of their roles and are fully conversant with project management methods and techniques. However, Board members still need to become more focused on asking the hard questions to validate the ability to deliver and focus on dealing with identified risks and potential issues.

Project Boards have appropriate business, project and Information Branch representation.

There is no evidence of projects being stopped or diverted to support the overall portfolio direction. However the Project Board and Change Advisory Board (CAB) would play a key role in the controlled stop or de-scoping of projects when this is required.

Configuration management and release management is applied effectively and consistency within Information Branch projects.

Project Status Reports are consistently used to provide assurance to project boards that projects are on track, and to provide information and guidance on dealing with issues and risks. It is recommended that project management metrics are used to monitor and control projects in quantitative terms. The concepts of tolerance

Releas

ed by

ACIC

unde

r FOI


December 2013




setting and exception management should also be applied in a flexible and pragmatic manner to support projects.

Project reviews could be more tightly managed, possibly through a support function or Portfolio Management Office and conducted at appropriate value assurance points such as end stage reviews.

Project Board members should consider better utilising independent project assurance on an as-required basis to facilitate getting them to a decision making position on issues that they do not have appropriate experience or when an independent expert viewpoint is required.

It is recommended that a support function is established to support the consistent gathering, analysis and reporting of progress information from all projects within the portfolio. This decision support function would be responsible for gathering progress information from all projects and collating into a Portfolio Management progress dashboard, including measuring performance against historic trends and the collation of lessons learned. Also for carrying out ‘What if analysis’ for any forecast project slippages or risks to identify knock on effects/impact across the portfolio and allow for pro-active decision making to be taken by the TGB. This support function would also provide a scrutiny and review function to the TGB. This support function could be established as part of a broader Portfolio Management Office.

Consideration could be given to the establishment of a centralised assurance service facilitated by the Portfolio Programme Office or support function. This has potential to provide independent assurance and/or facilitate bringing in appropriate experts on an as-required basis.

Project Boards should consider shifting their frequency depending on criticality and risk. This practice indicates maturity of board operation and should be applied more broadly across the portfolio.

Whilst ACC has started to monitor capacity and capability through the TGB, TGB Sub-committee and RMC, continued effort should also be put towards routinely collecting performance data from projects to support trend analysis and estimate model development/improvement. This should include data on the performance of contractors.

Knowledge management as a central function could be better utilised to help improve performance, particularly at the project level.

Performance assessment appears to be consistent across projects, whereas capability planning is less consistent and still needs to be embedded within the project management process.

4.4.4 Benefits Management

Benefits Management has been assessed as having a maturity rating of 2 which implies that “Benefits are recognized as an element within project business cases. There may be some documentation regarding who is responsible for particular benefits and their realization, but this is unlikely to be followed through or consistent.” Releas

ed by

ACIC

unde

r FOI


December 2013






Benefits within the context of ACC projects is currently primarily focused around the achievement of fit for purpose products from projects.

It is recommended that a support function is established to support project managers in defining, measuring, managing and reporting benefits. This will assist in skills transfer and operationalisation of benefits management. This support function could be established as part of a broader Portfolio Management Office.

Benefits defined at the portfolio level are typically cascaded down to projects.

Changes to projects appear to consider the impact on benefits.

Project Post Implementation Reviews typically focus on how well the project was run, but could better focus on the contribution to benefits and how benefits management could be improved.

Further development of benefit management skills within project and business change resources will contribute to continued benefits realisation improvement and maturity level improvement.

4.4.5 Financial Management

Financial Management has been assessed as having a maturity rating of 3 which implies that “There are centrally established standards for the preparation of business cases and processes for their management throughout the project life cycle and Project managers monitor costs and expenditure in accordance with organizational guidelines and procedures, with defined interfaces with other financial functions within the organization.”



Business cases are instrumental during the project assessment and approval phases. They are generally used as a source of truth and reference point during initial discussions for project decision making.

Cost management at the project level is fully integrated with the organisation’s financial management functions.

Financial tolerances are monitored effectively across all projects.

The RMC acts as an Investment Board to make project financial investment decisions. Financial performance of all projects is summarised and tracked via the TGB and the TGB Sub-committees.

Auditing of project expenditure is routinely undertaken and reported to the TGB.

All Risks should be evaluated in financial terms with viable response plans formulated and agreed via the Project Board and TGB as required.

As ACC progresses to a level 4 for Financial Management the usage of earned value concepts should be considered as a technique for measuring project performance and progress.

Releas

ed by

ACIC

unde

r FOI


December 2013




Whilst ACC reports on lessons learned at the completion of each project, lessons on cost estimation are not consistently shared, or sought after, across projects.

4.4.6 Stakeholder Management

Stakeholder Management has been assessed as having a maturity rating of 2 which implies that “Projects will be communicated to stakeholders, but this is linked more to the personal initiative of project managers than to a structured approach being deployed by the organization.”



ACC is starting to leverage an extensive range of communications channels and techniques to deliver messages supported by corporate communications.

Critical stakeholders are embedded within Project Boards to support the decision-making process.

All levels of project leadership are engaged with and support communications activities.

All projects consistently carry out a stakeholder analysis exercise. The analysis process is used to support the development of a stakeholder engagement and communication plan that covers both internal and external groups. . A more sophisticated approach to analysing, segmenting and communicating with stakeholders based around centrally maintained and consistent stakeholder models should be considered.

The effectiveness of communications and stakeholder engagement is sometimes measured using various mechanisms including surveys, formal and informal feedback channels, and forums. However, effort should be directed towards measuring the effectiveness of communications and stakeholder engagement consistently and in a more refined manner. Stakeholder reactions should also be analysed and communication management should actively attempt to influence stakeholder attitudes and levels of support.

Consider implementing specific communications budgets for all projects going.

Releas

ed by

ACIC

unde

r FOI


December 2013




4.4.7 Risk Management

Risk Management has been assessed as having a maturity rating of 2 which implies that “Risk management is recognized and used on projects, but there are inconsistent approaches, which result in different levels of commitment and effectiveness.”



While risk registers are used consistently. The implementation of standard Risk templates and registers should be reinforced across all projects.

Risk management is becoming an organisational process, with clear ownership for risk monitoring, management and assurance.

There appears to be a clear understanding of the level of risk exposure for most projects. This is actively managed by Project Boards. Project Board members and other key stakeholders generally feel comfortable with the management of project risks, and are involved as appropriate.

There is evidence of decision-making based on risk assessment.

Processes exist, and are consistently applied, for the escalation of risks to the project boards. Consistent use of exception reporting should be applied moving towards a level 3 maturity.

Aggregate risk levels across projects should be utilised consistently and be tracked and managed.

Audits of risk management effectiveness should be considered to identify lessons learned and facilitate continuous improvement.

As ACC progresses to a level 3 & 4 for Risk Management, ensure that resource and budgetary implications are clearly identified for all risks. Also ensure that the cost effectiveness and feasibility of response measures is demonstrable across all projects.

Releas

ed by

ACIC

unde

r FOI


December 2013




4.4.8 Resource Management

Resource Management has been assessed as having a maturity rating of 2 which implies that “Resources are being deployed across the organization and individual projects have an approach to resource acquisition, planning or management. However, there is little evidence of consistency of approach.”



Induction plans for individuals joining project teams has allowed for consistency of PRINCE2® based project management processes and continuity of projects.

Generic Project Management Training is provided by ACC. Moving forward it is suggested that training and coaching is tailored to the specific application of the ACC Project Management Framework. The establishment of a project management Community of Practice (CoP), competency map and resource development plans should also be considered.

The TGB is attempting to understand demand for project resources and, through forecasts, attempts to influence demand and prioritize projects. This progress by ACC should be maintained and refined.

Resource utilization tracking and productivity monitoring should be introduced into the ACC including quantitatively measuring resource availability and utilisation.

Whilst there is some collaboration between project teams, there is limited recognition at organisational levels of opportunities for sharing critical or limited resources.

There is still some reliance on key individuals. Maturation of activities on resource forecasting, utilisation, skills transfer and succession planning will reduce project risks relating to resource availability.

Releas

ed by

ACIC

unde

r FOI


December 2013




4.4.9 Project Generic Attributes Score

Overall General Attributes have been assessed at having a maturity rating of 3.

4.4.9.1 Roles & Responsibilities

Maturity rating of 3 is defined as “Centrally managed role definitions and sets of competencies defined and used to support appointments.”


Project managers are sourced from a resource pool of permanent employees with contractors being used as an overflow model based on approval from the RMC.

Whilst appointments are secured on centrally managed role definitions and sets of defined competencies, there is active awareness building of project management as a potential career move for staff who do not have a project management background.

The availability of training and ongoing development in project management skills should be embedded within the overall project management approach.

4.4.9.2 Experience in Project Management

Maturity Rating of 3 is defined as ”Key individuals have practical delivery experience and track record”


Project managers are key individuals with practical delivery experience and track record.

There is a willingness to promote project management as a worthy career path within the ACC. Consequently, any lack of formal project management skills and/or delivery experience is not seen as a barrier to a career path in project management.

There is active encouragement for the acquisition of project management skills – supported by training programs.

Releas

ed by

ACIC

unde

r FOI


December 2013




4.4.9.3 Capability development

Maturity rating of 2 is defined as: “Generic training may be provided in key concepts, and there may be individuals undertaking qualification training” “Local sharing of knowledge may exist but mostly ad hoc.”


Project managers are provided with appropriate training. However it is suggested that training and coaching is tailored to the specific application of the ACC Project Management Framework.

Mentoring on a “right mentor, right time” basis fostering an internal culture of continual improvement, high performance and transparency should be introduced into ACC over time.

Transparency around mistakes is encouraged with a “no blame” culture and one which encourages project managers to seek support in areas where they wish to grow their capabilities as well as specific situations such as defining benefits in business cases.

A learning and knowledge/experience sharing culture should be developed within ACC supported by Project Management forums and Communities of Interest, Lessons Learned Guides and information sessions.

4.4.9.4 Planning & estimating processes

Maturity rating of 2 is defined as: “Plans exist but are not underpinned by consistent development methodology, yet may still be effective locally” “Planning seen as activity tracking rather than proactive/forecasting” “Estimation is more “guestimation” and does not use standard techniques.”


Robust plans are used to underpin the establishment and control of all projects.

Project dependencies are identified and managed consistently. Change Apprpval Boards (CABs) and Project Boards play a key role in the management of cross-project dependencies.

Utilise trend data to support the enhancement of estimating models and lessons learned.

4.4.9.5 Information & documentation

Maturity rating of 3 is defined as: “Information has a refresh cycle or is regularly accessed” “Organization-wide information standards on confidentiality, availability and integrity” “Formal information release management procedures.”


ACC has a well defined Information Management Framework. It is recommended that this framework is applied consistently to all projects going forward including release management.

Further utilise trend data to support lessons learned and continuous improvement.

Releas

ed by

ACIC

unde

r FOI


December 2013




It is recommended that projects actively catalogue decisions required and create referenced decision making information which is filed at project completion.

4.4.9.6 Scrutiny & review

Maturity rating of 2 is defined as “Local reviews, with some corrective actions undertaken within the group.”


A culture of encouragement of information sharing and transparency is being supported within ACC.

Formal mechanisms for scrutiny and review should be established moving forward. A Portfolio Management Office could provide a scrutiny and review function to Project Boards and the TGB.

Project Post Implementation Reviews are being led from a perspective of compliance. These should be shifted to a mechanism for identifying opportunities going forward.

Releas

ed by

ACIC

unde

r FOI

Releas

ed by

ACIC

unde

r FOI


December 2013

39

© 2013 KPMG, an Australian partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity.

All rights reserved. KPMG and the KPMG logo are registered trademarks of KPMG International.


3 Sub-models Portfolio Management

The totality of an organisation’s investment (or a segment thereof) in the changes required to achieve its strategic objectives. Portfolio Management describes the management of an organisations portfolio of business change initiatives.

Program Management

Programs exist to manage the complexities involved in delivering beneficial change. Program Management is focussed on the areas of tension between strategic direction, project delivery and operational effectiveness.

Project Management

A project is a unique set of coordinated activities, with definite starting and finishing points, undertaken by an individual or team to meet specific objectives within defined time, cost and performance parameters as specified in the business case. Project Management guides a project through a visible set of activities, from controlled start-up, through delivery, to controlled closure, and review.

Releas

ed by

ACIC

unde

r FOI


December 2013

40




7 Process Perspectives 1. Management Control

This covers the internal controls of the initiative and how direction is maintained throughout its life cycle, with appropriate break points to enable it to be stopped or redirected by a controlling body if necessary. Best practice is characterised by clear evidence of leadership and direction, scope, stages, tranches and review processes during the course of the initiative.

2 Benefits Management

This ensures the desired business outcomes are clearly defined, measurable and ultimately delivered through a structured approach. Best practice recommends that benefits are assessed and approved by the organisational areas that will deliver them. Benefit dependencies and other requirements should be clearly defined, and understanding gained on how the initiative’s outputs will deliver the benefits.

3. Financial Management

This ensures that likely costs are captured and evaluated in a formal business case and are categorised and managed over the investment life cycle. There should be appropriate involvement from the organisation’s financial functions, with approvals being embedded in the broader organisational hierarchy. Best practice suggests that a business case should define the value of the initiative to the business and contain a financial appraisal of the possible options.

4. Stakeholder Management

Best practice suggests that both internal and external stakeholders are analysed and engaged in order to achieve the initiative’s objectives. Stakeholder Management includes communications planning, the effective identification and use of different communications channels, and techniques to enable objectives to be achieved.

5. Risk Management

This views the way in which the organisation manages threats to, and opportunities presented by, the initiative. Risk Management maintains a balance of focus on threats and opportunities, with appropriate management actions to reduce or eliminate the likelihood/impact of any identified threat.

6. Organisational Governance

This looks at how the delivery of initiatives are aligned to the organisation’s strategic direction, including start-up, closure and during the initiative’s lifecycle. This perspective looks at how the impact of external factors might be controlled/mitigated, as opposed to Management Control, which considers how internal control is maintained.

7. Resource Management

This covers management of all resources required for delivery, including human resources, buildings, equipment, supplies, information, tools and supporting teams. A key element is the process for acquiring resources and how supply chains are utilised to maximise their effective use. In best practice there will be evidence of capacity planning and prioritisation to enable effective resource management. Releas

ed by

ACIC

unde

r FOI


December 2013

41




5 Maturity Levels Maturity Level 1 - Awareness of Process

• Processes are not usually documented, actual practice is determined by events or individual preferences, and performance is variable.

• Successful initiatives are often based on key individuals’ competencies rather than organisation-wide capability and past successes can not be repeated consistently.

• Processes are undeveloped or incomplete. There is little or no guidance or supporting documentation and even terminology may not be standardised.

Maturity Level 2 - Repeatable Processes

• Basic management practices, e.g. tracking expenditure and scheduling resources, are in place and being improved. Key individuals are trained and demonstrate a successful track record and through them, the organisation is capable of repeating success.

• Initiatives are performed and managed according to their documented plans; project status and delivery is visible to management at defined points.

• There may still be inadequate measures of success; unclear responsibilities; ambiguity/inconsistency in business objectives; unintegrated Risk Management; limited Change Management; and inadequacies in communications strategy.

Maturity Level 3 – Defined Processes

• Management and technical processes are documented, standardised and integrated to some extent with business processes. There is some process ownership and a group responsible for maintaining consistency and delivering process improvements.

• Senior management are engaged consistently, providing active and informed support.

• There is an established training program to develop individual’s skills and knowledge.

Maturity Level 4 – Managed Processes

• The organisation has defined processes that are quantitatively managed, i.e. controlled using metrics. There are quantitative objectives for quality and process performance, and these are being used in managing processes.

• Top management are proactively seeking out innovative ways to achieve goals.

• Using metrics, management can effectively control processes and identify ways to adjust and adapt them to particular initiatives without loss of quality.

Maturity Level 5 – Optimised Processes

• There is focus on optimisation of quantitatively managed processes to account for changing business needs. The organisation exhibits continuous process improvement, and can show strong alignment of organisational objectives with business plans.

Releas

ed by

ACIC

unde

r FOI


December 2013

42




• Top managers are seen as exemplars, reinforcing the need and potential for capability and performance improvement.

• Information from process and product metrics enables the organisation to understand causes of variation and to optimise its performance.

Releas

ed by

ACIC

unde

r FOI

Releas

ed by

ACIC

unde

r FOI


December 2013

45




Interview Schedule by P3M3 sub-model

Date Time Name P3M3 sub-model Tuesday, 19 November

1530hrs – 1600hrs All interviewees Information Briefing – P3M3 Presentation

Thursday, 21 November

0900hrs – 1100hrs Narelle Lovett Portfolio & Project

1115hrs – 1245hrs Project 1300hrs – 1500hrs Portfolio & Project 1515hrs – 1715hrs Project Friday, 22 November

0830hrs – 1000hrs Portfolio and Project

1015hrs- 1215hrs Programme and Project

1300hrs – 1500hrs Paul Williams Portfolio, 1515hrs – 1715hrs Portfolio,

Programme & Project

Wednesday, 27 November

1300hrs – 1400hrs Portfolio - Organisational Governance only

1400hrs – 1500hrs Portfolio - Stakeholder Engagement

Monday, 1 December

1230hrs – 1330hrs Portfolio & Project - Risk Management

s 47Fs 47Fs 47Fs 47F

s 47F

s 47F

s 47F

s 47F

s 47F

Releas

ed by

ACIC

unde

r FOI


December 2013

46




Appendix C: Documents reviewed as part of the Process Review:

Portfolio Management

• Portfolio Management Framework trim:[13/126299]

• Portfolio Management Engagement & Approval process

• Project Prioritisation Criteria

• Technology Investment Process trim:[13/107975]

• CIO Framework trim:[13/101316]

• TGB TOR trim:[13/23685]

• TGB Sub Committee TOR trim:[13/23695]

• RMC TOR trim:[12/75219]

Project Management

• Project Management Framework trim:[07/1206816]

• Change Management Review trim:[13/1138413]

• Project Management Tailoring by Scale (Draft) trim:[12/95023]

• Project Board TOR example trim:[12/12432]

• Project Management Plan template trim:[13/140016]

• Project Board agenda example trim:[13/44725]

• Project Board Minutes example trim:[13/45854]

• Project Management Plan example trim:[13/142799]

• Project Closure Report example trim:[13/122816]

• Technology Development Investment Proposal trim:[13/129424]

• Risk Management Policy (Draft) trim:[13/164465]

• Strategic Risk Assurance Map (Draft) trim:[13/181357]

• Strategic Risk Profile. trim:[13/154392]

Releas

ed by

ACIC

unde

r FOI

FOI under ACIC by€¦ · The level 2 maturity achieved by ACC across the Portfolio and Project...

Documents

Transcript of FOI under ACIC by€¦ · The level 2 maturity achieved by ACC across the Portfolio and Project...