Upload
hilary-cox
View
218
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
U.S. Department of EnergyProject Management:
Communicating Progress – Celebrating SuccessPaul Bosco, PE, PMP, CFM, LEED-AP
Director, Office of Procurement and Assistance Management Director, Office of Engineering and Construction Management
Outline of Presentation
• GAO High-Risk List – Some Background
• Project Success – Are We There Yet?
• Project Metrics – How Are We Doing?
– Documenting and Tracking Performance
• Project Management Enhancements
• Challenges Ahead
• Questions/Comments2
3
Contract and Project Management Goal
• Improve contract and project management and alignment to support accomplishment of DOE mission and strategic goals
• Success Metric: – Complete projects within 10% of the original cost
baseline
• Secondary Goal:– Removal from GAO’s High-Risk List
4
Project Success
• Project Success: (For “Capital Asset Projects”)– Project completed within the ORIGINAL approved
scope baseline, and within 10% of the ORIGINAL approved cost baseline at project completion (CD-4), unless otherwise impacted by a directed change.
• Portfolio Success:– 90% of all projects meet project success criteria,
based on a three-year rolling timeline.
5
How are we Doing?Based on 3-Year Rolling Timeline
Capital Asset FY09Actual
FY10Actual
FY11Target
FY11Actual
FY11Post-RCA
Actual
Construction 79% 75% 90% 84% 100%
Cleanup -- 100% 80% 94% 97%
Combined -- -- -- 89% 98%
SC 91% 92% 90% 100% 100%
EM (Const) -- -- 90% 0% N/A
EM (Cleanup) -- 100% 80% 94% 97%
NNSA 75% 68% 90% 75% 100%
Other 67% 0% 90% 83% 100%6
FY07-09 FY08-10 FY09-11 FY07-09 FY08-10 FY09-11
Pre-RCA
0.79 0.740000000000002
0.750000000000002
Post-RCA
NaN 1 0.98
All Projects
0.79 0.78 0.890000000000002
Target
0.8 0.850000000000001
0.9
10%30%50%70%90%
(30 / 38)
(6 / 6)
(21 / 28)(26 / 35)
(43 / 44)
(30 / 38) (32 / 41) (64 / 72)
7
How are we Doing?Pre- vs. Post-RCA
(Dem
arca
tion
Dat
e: O
ctob
er 1
, 200
7)
8
Contract/Project ManagementSecondary Performance Metrics
FY 2011Target
FY 2011Actual Comments
Certified Earned Value Management (EVM) Systems: Post CD-3, 95% of line item projects and EM cleanup projects by FY11 and FY12, respectively.
95%Line Item
85%Cleanup
100%Line Item
88%Cleanup
CD-3 is “Approve Start of Construction/Execution.”[Stats: 34 of 34 and 21 of 24, respectively]
Certified Federal Project Directors (FPDs) at CD-1: By the end of FY11, 95% of projects have certified FPDs no later than CD-1.
95% 97%CD-1 is “Approve Alternative Selection and Cost Range.”• Line item: 98% [63 of 64]• Cleanup: 95% [39 of 41][Stats: 102 of 105]
Certified FPDs at CD-3:By the end of FY11, 90% of projects have FPDs certified at the appropriate level assigned to projects no later than CD-3.
90% 93%CD-3 is “Approve Start of Construction/ Execution.”• Line item: 93% [39 of 42]• Cleanup: 93% [27 of 29][Stats: 66 of 71]
Certified Contracting Staff: By the end of FY11, 85% of the 1102 contracting series will be certified.
85% 83%Contract Specialist series is “1102.”Actual to date: 91%NNSA (93%); EM (91%)
9
Contract/Project ManagementSecondary Performance Metrics
FY 2011Target
FY 2011Actual Comments
Schedule Compliance, Projects < 5 years Duration: By the end of FY11, on a program portfolio basis, 90% of all projects will meet the project schedule metric that follows: from CD-3 to CD-4, for projects less than five years in duration, they will be completed within 12 months of the original CD-3/4 duration.
90% 89%CD-3 is “Approve Start of Construction/ Execution” and CD-4 is “Approve Project Completion.”
[Stats: 59 of 66][Pre-RCA 36/41, Post-RCA 23/25 –92%]
Schedule Compliance, Projects > 5 years Duration: By the end of FY11, on a program portfolio basis, 90% of all projects will meet the project schedule metric that follows: from CD-3 to CD-4, for projects greater than five years in duration, they will be completed within 20% of the original CD-3/4 duration.
90% 20%CD-3 is “Approve Start of Construction/ Execution” and CD-4 is “Approve Project Completion.”
[Stats: 1 of 5 Pre-RCA]
CD-2 Commitment CD-4 Auditable• Scope Accomplished• Key Performance
Parameters Met• Total Project Cost• Completion Date
(Month/Year)• Signed by Acquisition
Executive
• Scope• Minimum Key
Performance Parameters
• Total Project Cost• CD-4 Date (Month/Year)• Signed by Acquisition
Executive
10
Documenting Project Success
Templates Online & OECM Review Draft Memos
Tracking Project PerformanceAgainst Current Project Performance Baseline
Project is expected to meet its performance baseline (PB)
Project is potentially at risk of not meeting element of the PB
Project is highly at risk of requiring a change to the PB
EVMS Indicators:• CPi• SPi• TCPi• EACs• Variances• Trends• % Complete
Assessment Factors:• Data validity• MR & Contingency• Reports• Reviews• Communication• Other information
Overall Project Assessment = EVMS Indicators + Assessment Factors
= +
• Yellow is not bad – provides early warning• DOE is not fixated on “getting to green,” only achieving
project success – meeting our commitments• Assessment is not solely ratio based – Trends are important
11
Significant PM Enhancements
• Established front-end planning maturity objectives
• Clarified project size and structure; program versus project management … “chunking”
• Transformed commitment to funding, budgeting; stabilized funding
• Enhanced management and oversight– Peer reviews for projects >$100M– PARS II central repository for project data – data accuracy
and consistency– ICRs/ICEs for projects >$100M
12DOE O 413.3B Highlights
Great Progress, But…Challenges Remain – Loom Ahead
GAO Meeting of March 5, 2012
• Two Impending GAO Reports (1) Non-Major System Projects; (2) EM Recovery Act
• Preliminary Findings1. SCOPE – SCOPE – SCOPE: “Low Confidence”2. Schedule (CD-4) Completions: Too Generic – Fiscal Year
(“Budget”) End Dates, i.e., FY113. Significant Cost Under-Runs4. PARS-II: Only as Good as the Data Quality
13
14
19401945
19501955
19601965
19701975
19801985
19901995
20002005
2010
2015
estimate
0
5,000,000
10,000,000
15,000,000
20,000,000
25,000,000
Fiscal Years
Actual Estimate
Major Challenge(Dollars in Trillions)
15
Major Challenge
19481950
19521954
19561958
19601962
19641966
19681970
19721974
19761978
19801982
19841986
19881990
19921994
19961998
20002002
20042006
20082010
-1,600.0
-1,400.0
-1,200.0
-1,000.0
-800.0
-600.0
-400.0
-200.0
0.0
200.0
400.0 Fiscal Years
National Deficit ($Billions)
16
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
$ in
bill
ions
Fiscal Year
DOE Appropriations
Budget Request Base Appropriations Recovery Act Appropriations
Source: FY2011 DOE Financial Report and FY12 Appropriations
Estimated
Portfolio Management – Project Prioritization
BudgetTarget
FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17$0
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
$1,400
$1,600
$1,800
Non-Discretionary (e.g., payroll, utilities, etc.)
Operations
Committed Funding Profiles
Budget± 20%Small Projects
Capital AssetProject Backlog
FY13 Budget
“Chunked” Projects
(Notional Data [$1B Budget])
PMI’s “Pulse of the Profession”*
Focus Areas of 2012: (In priority order)
1. Renewed Focus on Talent Management
2. Need for Good Project Portfolio Management
3. Change Management & Risk Management – Even More Important
4. Agile Project Management
5. Focus on Benefits Realization18
*PMI President and CEO: Mark Langley, March 2012
What’s Next? Play to Your Strengths – Disciplined
Implementation
• DOE has improved in project and contract management – our stats provide validation
• Our successes must be credible and documented
• Project management framework is in placehttp://energy.gov/management/office-management/operational-management/project-
management
• Immediate challenge: consistent implementation
• Future Challenge: Program/Portfolio Management
Credible project success is the key!19
20
Questions / Comments