NETLIPSE Infrastructure Project Assessment Tool Professor Hans-Rudolf Schalcher, ETH Zürich Amsterdam, 21 April 2009.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Methodologies for Assessing Social and Economic Performance in JESSICA Operations Gianni Carbonaro EIB - JESSICA and Investment Funds JESSICA Networking.
Advertisements

NATIONAL EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT FOR EXCELLENCE (SfE) PROGRAMME HOST Policy Research, PO Box 144, Horsham, West Sussex, RH12 1YS Telephone: ;
Vilius, 17 May 2010 Marcel Hertogh, Programme Director Network for the dissemination of knowledge on the management and organisation of Large Infrastructure.
NETLIPSE Infrastructure Project Assessment Tool Stuart Baker, Deputy Director of National Rail Projects Department for Transport, UK Zagreb, November 10,
Achieve Benefit from IT Projects. Aim This presentation is prepared to support and give a general overview of the ‘How to Achieve Benefits from IT Projects’
Training Evaluation Presentation by Ranjith Menon.
NETLIPSE Infrastructure Project Assessment Tool Stuart Baker, Deputy Director of National Rail Projects Department for Transport, UK Vilnius, May 18, 2010.
Partner reward – a help or a hindrance to effective business development? Peter Scott Peter Scott Consulting
DISTILLATE An introduction Final workshop of the DISTILLATE programme Great Minster House, London Tuesday 22 nd January 2008 Professor Tony May ITS, University.
Financial Model ‘An integrated model for STFC’ Draft Blueprint Design v0.1 Project Manager: Mark Affonso Project Champion: Jane Tirard.
1 Learning Objectives Understand the relationship between training and the organization Appreciate the three main training and development perspectives.
Monitoring, Review and Reporting Project Cycle Management A short training course in project cycle management for subdivisions of MFAR in Sri Lanka.
Pre-Project Planning Lessons from the Construction Industry Institute Construction Industry Institute Michael Davis, P. Eng, PMP Ontario Power Generation.
ZHRC/HTI Financial Management Training Session 1: Financial Management Overview.
Urban-Nexus – Integrated Urban Management David Ludlow and Michael Buser UWE Sofia November 2011.
ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE AUDIT
CEDR TG Road Safety Rome, 31 October 2005 CEDR and Road Safety Goals, Priority issues and working programme of the TG “Road Safety” and its Task Groups.
From Evidence to Action: Addressing Challenges to Knowledge Translation in RHAs The Need to Know Team Meeting May 30, 2005.
Marcel Hertogh, Programme Director Zagreb, 10 November 2009 Network for the dissemination of knowledge on the management and organisation of Large Infrastructure.
INDICATOR WORK Director Kari Seppälä University of Turku Centre for Extension Studies EUCEN Edinburgh
GOVERNMENT OF ROMANIA MINISTRY OF PUBLIC FINANCE MANAGING AUTHORITY FOR COMMUNITY SUPPORT FRAMEWORK Evaluation Central Unit Development of the Evaluation.
360 Degree Feedback & Performance Appraisal. What is 360 Degree Feedback ?? 360-degree feedback is defined as “The systematic collection and feedback.
Working Definition of Program Evaluation
Developing Indicators
GBA IT Project Management Final Project - Establishment of a Project Management Management Office 10 July, 2003.
© OECD A joint initiative of the OECD and the European Union, principally financed by the EU. Quality Assurance José Viegas Ribeiro IGF, Portugal SIGMA.
Inspire Personal Skills Interpersonal & Organisational Awareness Developing People Deliver Creative Thinking & Problem Solving Decision Making, Prioritising,
ROLE OF INFORMATION IN MANAGING EDUCATION Ensuring appropriate and relevant information is available when needed.
Making Good Use of Research Evaluations Anneli Pauli, Vice President (Research)
Insert Procurement Event Name Here Procurement Plan Presentation.
NETLIPSE Foundation Zurich, 20 October 2008 Stuart Baker.
Monitoring and Evaluation of GeSCI’s Activities GeSCI Team Meeting 5-6 Dec 2007.
CISB444 - Strategic Information Systems Planning Chapter 3 : Developing an IS/IT Strategy: Establishing Effective Processes Part 2.
© OECD A joint initiative of the OECD and the European Union, principally financed by the EU Selecting and Designing Concession / PPP Projects Martin Darcy.
IPA Funds Monitoring and Evaluation December Bölgesel Rekabet Edebilirlik Operasyonel Programı’nın Uygulanması için Kurumsal Kapasitenin Oluşturulmasına.
© OECD A joint initiative of the OECD and the European Union, principally financed by the EU Ensuring Good Quality PPP Projects Martin Darcy United Kingdom.
MONITORING SYSTEM OF EU STRUCTURAL FUNDS: PHYSICAL INDICATORS International Conference for New Member States February 1-2, 2012, Vilnius (Lithuania) European.
Project financed under Phare EUROPEAN UNION MERI/ NCDTVET - PIU Material produced under Phare 2006 financial support Phare TVET RO RO2006/
Queen’s Management & Leadership Framework
Geospatial LoB: Lifecycle WG Update November 3, 2009.
1 ARENA Workshop Renewables for Industrial Processes.
SOLUTION What kind of plan do we need? How will we know if the work is on track to be done? How quickly can we get this done? How long will this work take.
1 Strategic Plan Review. 2 Process Planning and Evaluation Committee will be discussing 2 directions per meeting. October meeting- Finance and Governance.
Kathy Corbiere Service Delivery and Performance Commission
Evaluation of NRNs Andreas Resch, Evaluation Advisor.
NETLIPSE 2 Network for the dissemination of knowledge on the management and organisation of Large Infrastructure Projects in Europe Marcel Hertogh Turin,
Continual Service Improvement Methods & Techniques.
IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency Arusha, Tanzania Uganda Dr. Akisophel Kisolo Project Counterpart 2 – 5 December 2013 RAF9038 Final Coordination.
URBACT IMPLEMENTATION NETWORKS. URBACT in a nutshell  European Territorial Cooperation programme (ETC) co- financed by ERDF  All 28 Member States as.
11/06/20161 Transport sector - Preparing for next programming period: SEA as part of ex-ante conditionality and ex-ante evaluation Adina Relicovschi Senior.
European Structural and Investment Funds for railways in Poland November 2015 Wolfgang Munch, Deputy Head of Unit DG Regional and Urban Policy.
P3 Business Analysis. 2 Section F: Project Management F1.The nature of projects F2. Building the Business Case F4. Planning,monitoring and controlling.
P5: Advanced Performance Management. Section A: Strategic Planning and Control A1. Introduction to strategic management accounting A2. Performance management.
Collaborative & Interpersonal Leadership
Systematic Project Management is our answer to the challenges in today’s project business We have the biggest portion of our business volume coming from.
Use of Training in Evaluation Capacity Building
Unit 1 What is Project Management
Arancha Oviedo EQAVET Secretariat
Assessment of the Evaluation Culture
Project Cycle Management
It’s not all about the tool!
Gender Equality Ex post evaluation of the ESF ( )
FUTURE CAPACITY BUILDING NEEDS dISCUSSION
Supporting Cities and Regions through Projects and Programmes
The role of the ECCP (1) The involvement of all relevant stakeholders – public authorities, economic and social partners and civil society bodies – at.
Helene Skikos DG Education and Culture
Portfolio, Programme and Project
IENE – INTERCULTURAL EDUCATION OF NURSES AND MEDICAL STAFF IN EUROPE
Internal and External Quality Assurance Systems for Cycle 3 (Doctoral) programmes "PROMOTING INTERNATIONALIZATION OF RESEARCH THROUGH ESTABLISHMENT AND.
ProZorro : Innovations in Digital Ex-Ante Monitoring Tools for Public Procurement in Ukraine Eliza Niewiadomska
Presentation transcript:

NETLIPSE Infrastructure Project Assessment Tool Professor Hans-Rudolf Schalcher, ETH Zürich Amsterdam, 21 April 2009

Motivation (1) The European Union and (new) member states:  address the need for a Trans European Transport Network (TEN-T)  have already invested billions in the construction of several Large Infrastructure Projects (LIPs) to create the TEN-T. But, these organisations:  have limited possibilities for forecasting and monitoring the effectiveness of these projects;  face large delays and cost overruns on the supported projects and experience local opposition;  notice that knowledge exchange between Large Infrastructure Projects (LIPs) is scarce.

Motivation (2) These organisations have a need for: 1.Improvement of the current management and organisation of LIPs. 2.Insight in ‘the vitality’ of projects on certain moments, e.g. financing (gate review):  to have a reliable insight in risks and opportunities before deciding; and if decision is ‘go’: as a basis to manage risks and opportunities  to allocate budgets to the most vital projects. 3.Better insight in the progress of LIPs (risks, opportunities). 4.Benchmark projects. For this NETLIPSE will develop: 1.Knowledge exchange programme 2.Infrastructure Project Assessment Tool 3.Training programmes

IPAT: Infrastructure Project Assessment Tool

1.Measurement  The IPAT is an assessment method of ‘the vitality’ of the project for the client/sponsor and project delivery organisation. When can the assessment take place? 1.On moments of ‘go/no go-decisions’ by sponsors: ex ante ‘gate review’. Gate reviews can indicate weaknesses and strengths in the organisation and management in advance. 2.During execution: monitoring. The ‘in between’ assessments can indicate the ability of the management to execute the planning and their adaptive abilities towards changes taking place during implementation. 3.Evaluation afterwards: ex post, in order to expand our knowledge about vital forms of organisation and management approaches of project planning and implementation. Ex post evaluation generates a comparative perspective on weaknesses and strengths on different implementation strategies. 4.Benchmarks. The assessments generates the ability to benchmark projects in different stages.

2.Improvement  The IPAT can also be used as a method by the organisation itself to improve their management.  The organisation can improve themselves:  As a stimulus from the IPAT assessment, to improve themselves to have a better review next time  To use the IPAT as a basis for improvement of strategy, organisation and processes.  In that way the organisation will facilitate their learning process.  The organisation can use the IPAT as a ‘self assessment’. A self assessment can be an important first step in an external peer review.

Assessment process Effective assessments will be based on professional use of the IPAT: 1.In order to get comparable information, the IPAT will be based on a questionnaire. 2.Self assessment and facts & figures as a starting point. 3.Essential is the team of assessors,  with assessors that have a track record:  in implementation to give professional judgement  in project evaluation and analysis to give a scientific judgement.  Assessors will be facilitated by an IPAT-training. The training will focus on the IPAT itself and the use of it.

Focus of the IPAT  The external reviewers will not decide on which approach is most appropriate in a certain situation.  Based on past information we know that each new project will ask for unique answers, that suit the objectives and requirements of that specific project and environment.  What we will evaluate is the quality of thoughts and reflections of sponsors/clients and programme managers on how they deal with the four elements of their challenge and they are going to realise their project within scope, budget and time.

Control & Interaction Interaction Control  Mature management of LIPs asks for a hybrid approach combining control and interaction.

IPAT Research Framework (1) 3 Levels Objectives and Scope Hardware and software Project and Context Risks and Opportunities

IPAT Research Framework (2) Hardware of projects: Planning & Control finance, objectives, risk, contracts, technology Software of projects: Shareholder management, Team culture, HRM Hardware of contexts: Legal consents, Policy dynamics, Market dynamics Software of contexts: Stakeholder management, Quality of external relations, Societal relation mgt. (SRM) CommitmentControl AnticipationSupport

11 Themes (draft) T 1 Objectives, Purpose and Business Case T 2 Functional Specification and Scope T 3 Interfaces T 4 Stakeholders T 5 Finances T 6 Legal T 7 Technology T 8 Knowledge T 9 Organisation and Management T10 Contracting (PPP) T11 Risks (Threats and Opportunities)

Milestones M 1Initiation of the project M 2Funding assembly M 3Official approval official planning authority M 4Start of execution M 5Completion M 6Start operation M 75 years after start of operation

M 1M 2M 3M 4M 5M 6M 7 T 1 T 2 T 3 T 4 T 5 T 6 T 7 T 8 T 9 T10 T11 Levels of Importance Prioritisation: Level 1: Minimal importance Level 2: Little importance Level 3: Medium importance Level 4: Important Level 5: Crucial

Target Groups  European Commission  Member States (Parliaments and Ministries)  Rail, road, waterway and airport authorities  Programme and project organisations  Financial institutes (e.g. EIB)  Insurance companies

Criteria IPAT 4 scientific criteria: 1.Practical Can we get the data? 2.Reliable Is the measurement consistent? 3.Validity Do we actually measure what we are supposed to measure? 4.Utility Is it useful, worth doing? 2 practical criteria: 5.Understandable: Is the outcome understandable for clients and project managers? 6.Presentable: Are we able to present the outcome unambiguously in an easy way?

Development of the IPAT  The IPAT needs acceptation of a sufficient number of (member) states.  We need to find a balance between effective development of the IPAT and involvement and commitment of (member) states.

Development of the IPAT Further steps:  Until September 2009:  Headlines of the IPAT  Concept manual, including questionnaires.  October 2009 – January 2010:  Test the IPAT on 3 to 4 projects.  February – April 2010:  Evaluation and sharpening the IPAT.  Complete and deliver the IPAT Assessors manual.  IPAT-assessors Course.