1

ImprovementofprojectqualitythroughProjectExcellencePreparation(PEP)

WhatisProjectExcellencePreparation?Definition:ProjectExcellencePreparation(PEP)isamethodtoanalyseprojectsstepbystepinordertoenableanddirectimprovementactivitiestomostcriticalareas.ProjectExcellencePreparation(PEP)isapracticalNordicapplicationoftheIPMAglobalstandardtheProjectExcellenceBaseline(PEB)andtheassociatedProjectExcellencemodel(PEM)developedbyIPMASweden/SvensktProjektforum.ThroughaPEPanalysisitispossibletoevaluatethelevelofexcellenceofaproject,andthroughapplyingthemethodseveraltimesduringtheprojectlifecycleitfacilitatescontinuousimprovementactivities.Theevaluationcovers20differentperspectivesontheprojectenablingtopinpoint,whicharethemostcriticalareasfromriskmanagementperspectivethatrequiremanagementattention.

ThePEmodelisbuilton15yearsIPMAexperienceofassessingprojectsfortheIPMAProjectExcellenceAward(postprojectevaluation),andthePEPapplicationonexperiencegatheredinSwedensinceearly2016onhowtostartevaluatingprojectsinsmallerstepwhereisanadvantagetomakethefirststepeitherjustbeforeprojectstartorattheverybeginningenablingasmuchpositiveandconstructiveinfluenceontheprojectendresultaspossible.Whatmakesthemodelparticularlyusefulisnotonlyit’sprovenabilitytospotandevaluatecriticalsuccessfactors,butthatitisholisticandapplicabletoanytypeofprojectsregardlessofindustry.Thisenablescomparisonandbenchmarkingalsoacrossindustries,andthepossibilitytotransferbestpracticefromotherindustriesforchallengesthatmyownindustrymayhavedifficultiestocopewith.Afullanalysisrequires200-300questionscovering20differentassessmentperspectivesdividedinto3mainareasincludingA)People&Purpose,B)Processes&ResourcesandC)ProjectResultsaswellas9sub-areas(A1-C4).TheProjectExcellencemodelevaluatesprojectqualityfrom20differentperspectivesandoffers,whenusedforano-goingproject,averygoodindicationforhavewelltheprojectwillsucceed.Thepicturebelowsummarisesthemainareasforassessment,andalogicalfollow-upquestionisthenwhichareasaremostcrucialforsuccess,andwheredoweneedtoimproveourselves?Apriorithereisnosimplyanswerbutitdependsfromprojecttoproject,andthereforePEPisdesignedtoquicklyidentifytheareasofmostriskanduncertaintyupfrontenablinglimitedtimeandresourcestobeallocatedas

2

earlyaspossibleduringthelifecycle,dothelessurgentlater,andiftimeallowsevenaddressingthenicetohaveimprovementsattheendoratleasthavingthemonthemapalreadyforfutureprojects.

Asummaryofallaspectstobeassessedisgivenbelow:

A. People&Purpose

A.1.Leadershipandvalues,• A.1a.Rolemodelsforexcellence• A.1b.Careforprojectstakeholders• A.1c.Orientationtowardsprojectobjectivesandadaptabilitytochange

A.2.Objectivesandstrategy• A.2a.Managingstakeholders’needs,expectationsandrequirements• A.2b.Developmentandrealisationofprojectobjectives• A.2c.Developmentandrealisationofprojectstrategy

A.3.Projectteam,partnersandsuppliers• A.3a.Identificationanddevelopmentofcompetences• A.3b.Recognitionofachievementsandempowerment• A.3c.Collaborationandcommunication

B.Processes&Resources

B1.Projectmanagementprocessesandresources

B2.Managementofotherkeyprocessesandresources

3

C.ProjectResults

C1.Customersatisfaction• C.1a.Customerperception• C.1b.Indicatorsofcustomersatisfaction

C2.Projectteamsatisfaction• C.2a.Perceptionoftheprojectteam• C.2b.Indicatorsofprojectteamsatisfaction

C3.Otherstakeholdersatisfaction• C.3.a.Perceptionoftheotherstakeholders• C.3.b Indicatorsofotherstakeholders’satisfaction

C4.Projectresultsandimpactonenvironment• C.4.aRealisationofresultsasdefinedinprojectobjectives• C.4.bRealisationofresultsbeyondprojectobjectives,includingimpacton

environment• C.4.cProjectperformance

ThepurposeofPEPistoprovideanefficientandeffectivetoolenablinggradualimprovementactivitiesduringtheentirelifecyclewithlimitedresources.Atthestartonlythe5mostimportantevaluationareas(outof20)areanalysedbyaskingonlythe3mostimportantquestionswithineacharea(Step1),whichgivesagoodpictureofthemostcriticalareasforimprovement,andthepossibilitytoaddressthematanearlystage.Whentheprojecthasprogressedabitfurtheritisadvisabletogofurtherdeepeningintoanother5perspectiveswithsecondarypriority(Step2)beforeitstimetocovertheentirescopebyaddingthe10remainingperspectives(Step3).

BenefitfordifferentstakeholdersNaturallytherearemanystakeholderstoprojectsrangingfromthoseactivelyinvolvedsuchascompanies,organisations,contractorsandsuppliersetc.,butalsoawholerangeofotherstakeholdersdirectlyorindirectlyaffectedbyaproject.PEPismainlytargetingpeoplewhowantstouseprojectsasanopportunitytolearnanddevelopprojectmanagementcompetences(atindividual,projectandorganisationallevel)includingprojectmanagersandteammembers,PMOstaff,linemanagersandassessors.

Benefitsforcorporatesandorganisations:• Amethodforsystematicself-analysis/assessmentofownprojectsstepbystep• Alwaysfocusonthegreatestpossiblebenefitatshort-termwithlimited

resourcesaimingtospotandaddressareaswiththegreatestimprovementpotentialconstitutingalsomainprojectrisks

• Amethodforsystematicandstepwiseassessmentseveraltimesduringtheprojectlifecyclewiththeassistanceofexternalassessors

• Makesvisiblestrengthstobuildonandareastoimprove• Makes“blindspots”visible• Createsself-awarenessabouttheprojectamongvariousstakeholders

4

• Deliversan"independent"reportonthestatusoftheprojectandproposalsforimprovement

• Benchmarkingandcomparisonwith"bestinclass"

HowisasimplifiedPEPassessmentconducted?TheideabehindasimplifiedPEPassessmentistofacilitateforanyprojectgettingstartedwithaminimumoftimeandeffort(only15questions)toexperienceimmediatebenefits,andthentobeencouragedtotakefurtherstepsinagraduallearningprocess.Byfocusingonlyonthe5mostimportantareas(outof20)andthe3mostimportantquestionsineacharea(Step1)itispossibletoquicklyidentifyanycriticalareasforimprovement.Eachassessmentstartswithaself-assessmentansweringseveralquestionsthatpreferablyisdonewithseveraliterationsbetweenaprojectmanagerandacoach,eventuallyfollowedbyanexternalassessmenttodeterminehowwelltheprojectscore.AsimplifiedPEPassessmentisscoredaccordingtoatrafficlightapproachwherea“red”scoreisasignalofriskmeaningthatnotsufficientevidencehavebeenprovidedthattheareasforimprovementshavebeendetectedandarebeingdealtwith.A“yellow”score=OKprovidedactionsforimprovementorgoodbutwithpotentialimprovementstonote.A“green”scoremeansthattheprojectisalreadyregardedasexcellentaccordingtotheveryhighstandardsforinternationalprojectexcellencesupportedbyevidence.Eachassessmentalwaysstartsbyaself-assessmentdonebytheprojectmanager(possiblyinvolvingalsootherprojectteammembers)answeringanumberofquestionsfollowedbyanexternalassessmentofanassessor.Inpracticetheremightbeseveralroundsofinteractions(emailexchange/Skype/phoneetc.)betweentheprojectmanagerandtheassessor/coachforeachstep(1-3)inaninteractiveprocessfortheprojectmanagertograduallyunderstandthemodel,andwhatisrequiredintermsofprovidingwrittenstatementssupportedbydocumentreferencesinordertomoveuponthescoringladder.Ifriskareasarefound(redscoring),itisadvisablefortheprojecttoimmediatelyaddresstheseareasbyundertakingimprovementactivitiesbeforegoingfurther.Ifeverythingisokorgood(yellowscoring)orevenexcellent(green)theimprovementsmaybelessurgent,anditmightbeadvisableasanextsteptocoveralsotheareaswith2:ndpriority(Step2)foranotherquickscreeningofpotentialrisks.Finally,tomakesurethattheprojectisontopofall20perspectivesregardedascrucial

5

successfactorsforprojectexcellencetheremaining10areaswithpriority3willbeexaminedinasimilarprocesswithanadditional30questions.

DependingonwheretheprojectisinthelifecycletheremightnotyetbesufficientevidencetoscorewellonaStep2orStep3assessment,asitrequiresalotofproofofstakeholdersatisfactionandprojectresultsthatsimplyisnotyetthere.However,theStep1assessmentcouldpreferablybedoneatthestartoftheprojectorevenbeforetoensurethattheprojectstartsofonagoodtracktowardsprojectexcellence,andthenfollowedbysubsequentstepslateron.Evenifstep1onlyhasalimitedscopeitcanalreadygiveaverygoodindicationabouttheprojectandit’spotentialwithonlylimitedresources.

Whatisthepriorityorderforthe20perspectives?Thetablebelowshowsinwhatpriorityorder(1-3)the20differentperspectivesarecovered,whichcoincideswithwhatistoppriorityearlyintheproject(Step1),whatwillgraduallybecomethenextareastofocusonastheprojectproceeds(Step2),andtheneverythingelsethatneedstobecovered(Step3)todemonstrateprojectexcellenceforaprojectthatisalreadyadvancedorfinished.FollowingthelogicofthemodelwhereareaA)PeopleandPurposeisthefoundationforprojectexcellenceandthemostimportantarea,3/5priority1perspectivesarefocusingontheseaspectstoensurethattheprojectisendowedwithaleadershipcompetentandabletoactasrolemodelsforexcellence.Inaddition,1Barea(ProcessesandResources)perspectives,and1Carea(Projectresultsandstakeholdersatisfaction)perspectiveisalsoamongthetop5perspectivesthatneedtobeaddressedfirst.Thisallowsalsoforprojectmanagementprocessesandresources(B1)tobeanalysedearlyonasanareathatreinforcesexcellence,aswellascustomersatisfaction(C1)toshowevidenceofhowthemostimportantstakeholder(thecustomer)perceivestheprojectmanagementandtheprojectresults.TheexamplebelowshowstheresultofaStep1assessment.Onearea,A1a(towhatextentleadersoftheprojectare“Rolemodels”forexcellence),isscoredredmeaningthatevidenceismissingtosufficientlyanswerthethreequestionsasked(seebelow).

Project Excellence Preparation (PEP) Step 1-3

SelfAssessment

Externalfeedback

Feedback

Step1PEP

Basicassessment5criteriax3ques:ons

Basicassessment++10criteriax3ques:ons

Basicassessment+5criteriax3ques:ons

Coaching=

support

instrument

Step2PEP

Step3PEP

6

Perspective&priority Criteria Step1 Step2 Step31 PrioI A1a AFI 2 PrioI A1b AFI 3 PrioII A1c ? 4 PrioI A2a S 5 PrioII A2b ? 6 PrioII A2c ? 7 PrioII A3a ? 8 PrioIII A3b ?9 PrioIII A3c ?10 PrioI B1 S 11 PrioIII B2 ?12 PrioI C1a AFI 13 PrioIII C1b ?14 PrioIII C2a ?15 PrioIII C2b ?16 PrioIII C3a ?17 PrioIII C3b ?18 PrioII C4a ? 19 PrioIII C4b ?20 PrioIII C4c ?

DefinitionsAFI Majorareaforimprovement(AFI)/evidencelackingorincomplete/

potentialrisk(manynormalprojectsscoreredbecausethefeedbackloop(Check&Act)ofthePlan-Do-Check-Actchainisinsufficientorincomplete

AFI AreaforImprovement(AFI)evidencingthattheareamightbeokwithsomecorrectiveactions(themajorityofnormalprojectsbelongtothiscategory)

S Evidencethattheareaisgood(S=Strength)andhasreachedtheIPMA-levelofprojectexcellence50%eveniftherearestillremarkstodealwith(onlyaminorityofnormalprojectsreachthislevelconsistentlyinmostareas)

S Majorstrengthwithclearproofforprojectexcellence(onlyafewworld-classprojectsreachthislevelsystematically)

Thisisnotnecessarilytosaythattheprojectmanagerisnotarolemodelforexcellence,becauseitisaboutthecollectiveleadershipwheretheprojectmanagerisanimportantperson,buttheanswer/assessmentiscoveringalsoallotherconcernedleaderswhocoulde.g.besub-projectmanagersorotherpersonsinthecoreteamincludingrelevantlinemanagers,steeringgroupmembersandprojectsponsor.However,forthemomentthisismarkedasamajor“AreaforImprovement”(AFI).AtthesametimetheprojectverywelldocumentedproofinansweringthethreequestionsforA2aManagingstakeholders’needs,expectationsandrequirementsdeservingagreenscore

7

indicatingamajorstrength.Remainingthreepriority1perspectivesareallyellowincluding:

• A.1b.Careforprojectstakeholders• B.1.ProjectManagementProcesses&Resources• C.1a.Customerperception

Ayellowscorecouldhavedifferentinterpretations.Intwocases(A1bandC1a)yellowiscombinedwiththecommentAFI(areaforimprovement)meaningthatitisstillokprovidedsomecorrectiveactions.Inonecase(B1)projectmanagementprocesseshasbeenassessedasayellowstrength(S),whichmeansthattheareaisgoodeveniftherearesomeimprovementsuggestionstonote.Hereitshouldbenotedthatmostnormalprojectsinitiallyisnotreachingbeyondtheloweryellowlevel(yellow+AFI),andthatonlyamajorityofprojectsreachtheIPMAlevelforprojectexcellencestartingwithahighyellowscore(yellow+S).Exampleoffirst3questionsofaPEPStep1assessment

A.1a.Rolemodelsforexcellence=PrioI(perspective1)Leaderscommunicateandliveuptotheirvalues(i.e.theywalkthetalk),followethicalstandardsandactasrolemodels.Theyensurethatstructuresandnormsareinplacethatenableprojectteammemberstoworkeffectivelyandefficiently.Leadersbuildandstrengthenacultureofexcellenceandcontinuousimprovementbothwithinandbeyondtheproject.Theyobserveandcarryouttheprojectexcellenceconceptinacrediblewayandstimulateotherstodothesame.

Pleaseanswerthe3questionsbelowtowhatextentleadersinyourprojectare:

1. Rolemodelsforintegrity,socialresponsibility,ethicalbehaviour(e.g.asdefinedintheUNGlobalCompact’stenprinciplesintheareasofhumanrights,labour,theenvironmentandanti-corruption)andtheprojectexcellencephilosophy,bothwithintheprojectanditsenvironment(e.g.towardsthelineorganisation,clients,partners,suppliersetc.),andensuretheprojectteammembersadoptandliveuptothesevalues?

2. Activelyseekingfeedbackfromdifferentstakeholderstoimprovetheirleadershipapproach?

3. Inspiringprojectteammemberstostriveforexcellenceintheirbehaviourand

workingmethods,keepinginmindtheobjectivesoftheproject?

AretheremorelevelsforPEPassessment?Inadditiontoasimplifiedassessment(doneby1externalassessorbasedonawrittenself-assessmentanddocumentedreferences)thereisalsoapossibilitytogetamorein-depthanalysiswithasimilarmethodappliedbyateamofassessors.Becausethefocushereisdifferentit’snolongercalledProjectExcellencePreparation(PEP)butProjectExcellenceAssessment(PEA).ThemainpurposeofPEPistoofferprojectmanagersasupportingcoachingtoolthatmaybeextendedtoincludealsootherleadersintheprojectaswellastheprojectteam.OnthecontrarythepurposeofPEAistobeacontrolinstrumentwithapossibilitytoobtainamorenuancedpictureofthematurityofthe

8

projectbasedonactualverificationofproofduringasitevisit.Theassessorswillinterviewdifferentstakeholders,verifyprojectdocumentationandexaminethephysicalprojectresultstobeabletomakeafirmandfactbasedassessmentoftheactualsituation.Theprevioussimplifiedtrafficlightscoring(usedforStep1-3)isreplacedbyapercentagescoringrangingfrom0-100%wherethe50%-levelalreadyisaproofforinternationalprojectexcellenceaccordingtoIPMAbenchmark.

LimitedProjectExcellenceAssessment(Step4):Step4isanassessmentwithlimitedscopeincludingthesame60questionscoveredduringasimplifiedassessment(Step1-3)butwiththedifferenceofasitevisitby3assessorsinsteadofonlyavirtualassessmentby1assessor.Normally,everyprojectshouldstartwithstep1-3,andcontinuewithstep4asalogicalnextstepwhenthemodelisfullyunderstood,60questionsarealreadyproperlyansweredandevidencedbydocumentreferences(asanessentialbasis/inputtoassessorspreparingthesitevisit).Thismethodalsoenablestheprojecttoalreadyundertakeanumberofimprovementactivitiesthatcouldbeverifiedinamorein-depthanalysis.AlimitedPEassessment(Step4)includesa1-daysitevisitbyateamof3assessors(outofwhichatleasttwoincludingtheteamleadassessorareexternal.Thescopeinstep4isalwaysthesame(60questions)regardlessofsizeandcomplexityoftheproject.

FullProjectExcellenceAssessment(Step5):ThepurposeofafullPEassessment(Step5)istoobjectivelyandindependentlyverifyaprojectwiththesamerigorousmethodusedfortheNordic/IPMAProjectExcellenceAward.Regardlessifaprojecthastheambitiononabilitytocompeteforanawardthistypeofassessmentgivesaverydetailedmappingofallrelevantaspectsforproject

Project Excellence Assessment (PEA) Step 4-5

4

SelfAssessment ExternalAssessment

Fullassessment20criteriax10-15ques6ons

Limitedassessment20criteriax3ques6ons

Feedback

FeedbackSitevisit

Assessmen

t=

control

instrument

Step4PEA

Step5PEA

Sitevisit

9

excellencebygoingintothedepthofeachperspectiveanswering200-300questionscoveringall20areasoftheprojectexcellencemodel.Evenifpreviousstepsalsogivebenchmarkingpossibilitiesitisonlyatthislevelthatanassessmentcanbefullycomparablewiththeinternationalbenchmarksestablishedby“Aw5ardWinners”.Theassessmentscopeisdependingonsizeandcomplexityoftheproject(seetablebelow).ScopeofafullPEPassessment(Step5)

Category:Projectsize

No.Employees Assessors Sitevisit

EUR

Mega 100million over1500 5 3daysBig 5million- 500-1500 4 2daysNormal below -500 3 1.5days

Dependingonwhatcategorytheprojectbelongstothesitevisitmayrangebetween1.5dayswith3assessorsupto3dayswith5assessors.AfullPEPassessmentisconductedeitherafteracompletedstep/partproject/majormilestone(whereitisstillpossibletoobtainactivitiestoimprovethefinalprojectoutcome)orafteracompletedprojecttocarryoutaproperlessonslearnedanalysisforthebenefitofnext/futureprojects.

Whatarethenextdevelopmentstepsfortheseservices?CurrentlyworkisunderwayinSwedentoestablishabusinessmodelaroundPEP/PEAinvolvingvariousstakeholderswithdifferentrolesaccordingtothepicturebelow.

10

PEPisconceivedasaninternaltoolfororganisationshavingtheirownprojectsandwherepreferablyaprojectmanagementoffice(PMO)isofferedthepossibilitytodiscoveraspectsofprojectexcellencenormallynotconsidered,butbeingpartoftheIPMA’sholisticapproach.ThisapplicationofPEPisshownwithayellowarrowwheretheprojectispreparinganindependentexternalassessmentbyanIPMAmemberassociation(MA)suchase.g.SvensktProjektforum(SPF)inSweden.Aftersuchanexternalassessment(PEAstep4or5)theorganisationandprojectwillhavethetasktofollowuponfeedbacktakingcorrectiveactions(2ndyellowarrow).InparalleltothisapproachthereisalsoanopportunityforanSPFaccreditedconsultanttoofferbothpreparationandfollow-upservicesonacommercialbasis(bluearrowsinthepicture).SPF(anIPMAMA)ownsthelicensetoIPMAstandardsaswellasPEPtoolsandtemplates,whichrightcanbeextendedtootherpartiesaccordingtoagreedconditions.ThemainroleofSPF(IPMAMA)istoguaranteeindependentassessmentservices(PEAstep4and5),andisalsotheonlypartyauthorisedtodothat.Inaddition,SPFalsohasthepossibilitytoofferthepreparationservicePEPwithclearrulesonthedifferencebetweencoaching/preparationandexternalassessment.Inorderforanassessmenttobeindependentitisimportantthatthesamepersonwhowasthecoachforpreparationdoesnotdoit.ThefollowingroadmapgivesanideaaboutintendedfutureservicedevelopmentwherePEPfocusingonprojectsisonlythefirstphasetobefollowedbyanextphasecomplementingPEPwithadditionalservicesforProjectGovernancePreparation(PGP)wheretheprojectsteeringgroupperspectiveforaspecificprojectcanbeanalysedandfurtherdevelopedinastepbystepcoachingprocess.Fordefinitionsandabbreviationspleaseseeappendix.

11

APPENDIX:Definitions

12