2. COMMERCIAL-IN-CONFIDENCE
Agenda
• The problem
• The project context
• Dancing the tango
• Reputation and relationships
• Solutions must be standards-based
• Methodology
• Output
• Benefits
• Problem avoidance
2
3. COMMERCIAL-IN-CONFIDENCE
3
“If you can measure it, you can manage it; if you can’t
measure it, you can’t manage it; if you can’t manage
it, it’s because you can’t measure it; and if you
managed it, it’s because you measured it...
...but don’t mistake the measures
themselves for the things they were
intended to measure.”
Art or Science?
5. COMMERCIAL-IN-CONFIDENCE
Standard Diagnoses
5
• Poor planning
• Unclear goals and objectives
• Objective(s) changes during project
• Unrealistic time/resource estimates
• Lack of executive support or user involvement
• Failure to communicate and act as a team
• Inappropriate skills
6. The Challenge:
How do we create some foresight,
which has the clarity of hindsight?
6
7. COMMERCIAL-IN-CONFIDENCE
Problem Statement #1:
Reputation & Capability
– Who to buy from?
– Who to sell to?
– Who can deliver?
– Who will pay?
– Who knows what they want (specifications)?
‣ Delivers quality, timeliness and cost effectiveness
‣ Manages uncertainty
‣ Creates/offers/delivers trust
7
14. COMMERCIAL-IN-CONFIDENCE
Methodology
Open Standards Based
• Mutual Assessment Framework (or an opinion market)
– Competency:
• Assessed against certification standards; evidence-based
Quality, Project Management, Risk Management, Service Management,
Environmental, OH&S…
– Capability:
• Assessed against 5 stage CMM scale (P3M3 comparable)
Ad hoc ––> Repeatable ––> Defined ––> Managed ––> Optimised
– Capacity:
• Assessed by reference to current and future workload; special requirements
– Culture of the organisation
• Culture diagnostic – hierarchical vs self-directed etc
– Complexity
• Assessed by reference to project classification
– Commercial Viability:
• Standard business referencing
– Compliance
• Declaration; provision of a code of ethics
14
18. Competencies are fine...
...but Capabilities are critical to success
• Capabilities delivered in the project
• Processes documented and applied
• People trained, tested and empowered
18
20. Who should do the scoring?
20
The parties. They are best placed.
The challenge is to minimise bias
21. COMMERCIAL-IN-CONFIDENCE
Capability Scoring
• On-line tool
• Self-assessment
• Counterpart assessment
• Moderation
• When?
– Concept viability (“can we do this?”)
– At project initiation;
– Gate 0; circuit-breaker
– Repeated with Gateway Reviews; or periodically during program
• Multiple snapshots
– time series to measure progress
21
22. COMMERCIAL-IN-CONFIDENCE
Assessing Culture
• Brief diagnostic to measure:
– Agility
– Direction
– Engagement
– Innovation
– Execution
– External orientation
– Performance orientation
– Trust
• To inform the parties
22
23. COMMERCIAL-IN-CONFIDENCE
Process
23
Inititiate
• Willing parties
• Project,
contract or
relationship
• Identify
respondents
Assess
• Competencies
• Capabilities
• Culture
• Complexity of
project
Report
• Overall scores
• Gaps
• Moderate
discussion
5-10 working days
24. COMMERCIAL-IN-CONFIDENCE
Outputs
• A published, overall “rating”
for project classifications
• Detailed scoring –
competency, capabilities
against different project
types
• P3M3 build up, as projects
assessed
• Exceptions listed
24
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
0
1
2
3
4
5
Seeking Complements
Customer Supplier
28. COMMERCIAL-IN-CONFIDENCE
Benefits
• Creates an objective, independent evidence base to establish
“capability reputation” for all players in projects
• Standardised, comparable scoring mechanism with counterpart
purchaser-provider, in real world project context
‣ Both benchmarking and capability maturity (P3M3)
‣ Highlights relative strengths/weaknesses in relationship or program delivery
• Contextual: scores relative to complexity (size, scope, risk …)
• Comprehensive process, fast and efficient
‣ Minimal resource impact, rapid turnaround
‣ Current, timely data available (“real time”)
• Complete picture of performance:
‣ competence, capability, capacity and commercial viability
28
30. COMMERCIAL-IN-CONFIDENCE
Current participants
• Major government agencies
• Major vendors
• Large public sector shared services agency
– With key vendors
– With key clients
• External supplier, internal systems integration
• Internal parties delivery policy and service
delivery
30
32. COMMERCIAL-IN-CONFIDENCE
Acknowledgements
• OGC
– PRINCE2, ITIL and P3M3 are all trademarks of the UK
Office of Government Commerce
– The Common Assessment Framework (CAF) is a
methodology, parts of which C-Metrics has been given
access to, on a shared IP basis
• Culture-Strategy Fit, Inc (Canada)
• Relevant ISO/Australian Standards & related
practices
32