2. AIPM State of the Nation A Review of the Status of Project Management in Australia – A Personal Perspective Colin Dobie Immediate Past President AIPM Chairman Asia Pacific Federation of Project Management

3. AIPM State of the Nation – Project Management in Australia  Introduction  Profession?  Organisational Adoption  People  Process  Performance – Outcome of Projects  Score-card Results  Conclusion

4. AIPM The presentation addresses each category, and in the opinion of the author an assessment is made as to whether the objectives are achieved from the perspective of project management in Australia. While there are positives and negatives weighed for each sub-category, the overall ‘score’ only is recorded here, as a P (Positive) or N (Negative).

5. AIPM Profession Acceptance as a Profession Professional Association Globalisation ‘Profession’ addresses where project management meets criteria commonly applied to professions; success or otherwise of AIPM; and whether globalisation initiatives have impacted positively on project management in Australia (take-up by government, transnationals, etc).

6. AIPM Profession Acceptance as a Profession N Professional Association P GlobalisationN

7. AIPM OrganisationGovernance Management Roles & Responsibilities (Steering Committee / Owner / Sponsor) Organisational Acceptance Maturity Addresses the Organisation in the context of whether satisfactory governance structures are in place and processes are practised in the majority of organisations; roles and responsibilities of key executive commitment to project delivery; organisations are accepting project management as a business discipline; and more organisations are going up the maturity scale (with less regression).

8. AIPM OrganisationGovernanceN Management Roles & Responsibilities (Steering Committee / Owner / Sponsor) N Organisational Acceptance N MaturityN

9. AIPM People Portfolio Manager / Program Director Project Manager Team Member Recruitment / Employment to Endorsed Criteria Addresses certified competence at three levels; and whether more organisations seek to engage project managers to competency criteria.

10. AIPM People Portfolio Manager / Program Director P Project Manager P Team Member P Recruitment / Employment to Endorsed Criteria P

11. AIPM Process Project Management Cycle Portfolio Cycle Project / Business Alignment Addresses processes at three levels; project, portfolio, and project to business alignment (such that process and role relationships are understood and practised.)

12. AIPM Process Project Management Cycle P Portfolio Cycle N Project / Business Alignment N

13. AIPM Performance Outcomes of Projects Projects Delivered Better? Benefits Realisation Social / Environmental Benefits Project Management supporting Emerging Nations, Social Projects The final category is whether projects are actually improving in delivery terms. Are Australian organisations specifying benefits criteria and tracking to realisation (including post-project)? Are there social and environmental benefits specified and achieved in major projects? Is enough being done to use project management to support social/ welfare/ aid projects or is it more a tool of the already successful/ rich (to be more successful/ rich)?

14. AIPM Performance Outcomes of Projects Projects Delivered Better? P Benefits Realisation N Social / Environmental Benefits P Project Management supporting Emerging Nations, Social Projects N

15. AIPM Performance Outcomes of Projects The preceding slides give a perception of success (8 positives, 10 negatives), but isn’t enough to give a real scorecard result. A way is to use our own techniques, and derive a value versus risk map, or bubble-chart; i.e.: what value is project management delivering, versus the downside or negatives of non-achievement. The following two slides explain the technique (do not worry about details, it is the method of benefits management that is important). Criteria both positive and negative for a project’s outcomes are listed, weighted in the context of the portfolio in which the project resides, and is scored. The total value (positive) score is compared to the total risk (negative) score. In this example it is 123: - 115, which equates in a score out of 5 to 3.2: -3.0. This is then logged in the bubble-chart at 3.2 on the value axis and 3.0 on the risk axis. A balanced portfolio would have projects in 3 of the 4 quadrants, but would avoid any projects that slip into the bottom right-hand quadrant (little value, high risk/ negatives). For this exercise I have logged the example project as a square.

16. Factor Risk / Value Portfolio Weighting 1-10 Project Score 0-5 TotalStrategic Meets current corporate strategy Value9327 Retains relevance over 5 year strategy Risk-83-24 Corporate image Value7214 Governance Regulatory Authority/Statutory Value5315 Obligation Project Innovation v. Compliance Risk-84-32 Requirements Technical Re-use of technical solution Value7321 Technical uncertainty Risk-83-24 Innovation / Technical excellence of solution Value6530 Project ComplexityRisk-72-14 Resource availability Risk-73-21 Personnel experience gained / re-use Value4416 Total Value Score (190) Total Value Score (190) 123 (3.2) Total Risk Score (-190) Total Risk Score (-190) -115 (-3.0) Value / Risk Score Value / Risk Score8 ©CPMGroup 2003 – Not to be reproduced without express permission of author

18. AIPM Review our Project in the same context of Assessment to (Selection) Criteria: Project Objective when introduced was “To Introduce and Promote a Profession of Project Management in Australia” Selection Criteria

19. AIPM Performance Outcomes of Projects Dealing with how the ‘Profession’ of Project Management is holding up, I have now applied my evaluation based on the last 10 years of observation across 12 industry sectors and government at 3 levels in Australia. I have weighted each element, and score each out of 5. It derives a score, revealing my evaluation of major strengths (People) and major weaknesses (Organisation). The negatives outweigh the positives (83:-108) which equates to a score out of 5 of 2.1:-2.7.

21. AIPM Profession Acceptance as a Profession N5-3-15 Professional Association P4312 GlobalisationN4-3-12 -15

22. AIPM OrganisationGovernanceN4-3-12 Management Roles & Responsibilities (Steering Committee / Owner / Sponsor) N3-3-9 Organisational Acceptance N3-2-6 MaturityN3-2-6 -33

23. AIPM People Portfolio Manager / Program Director P515 Project Manager P4416 Team Member P326 Recruitment / Employment to Endorsed Criteria P339 36

24. AIPM Process Project Management Cycle P4520 Portfolio Cycle N5-2-10 Project / Business Alignment N4-2-8 2

25. AIPM Performance Outcomes of Projects Projects Delivered Better? P515 Benefits Realisation N5-2-10 Social / Environmental Benefits P5210 Project Management supporting Emerging Nations, Social Projects N5-4-20 -15

26. AIPM SummaryProfession-15Organisation-33 People36 Process2 Performance – Outcomes of Projects -15 In summary, the ‘score’ of all sub-categories is 8.3: -1.8, a difference of 15 in the negative. On a bubble-chart this equates to 2.1: - 2.7, which puts the profession of project management in the wrong quadrant (too many negatives, not adding enough value).

27. ©CPMGroup 2003 – Not to be reproduced without express permission of author

28. AIPM But should we leave it there? Of course not. The objective is to pinpoint areas to improve, the most dramatic being the organisation area, in governance, roles, acceptance and maturity. In this category alone, if we could turn it around to the positive, as shown in the next slide, the net impact is to delete 33 from the negative and add it to the positive – a score of 116:-75 or 3.1:-1.7. (Note: the scoring system is indicative only and the scores are my opinions only – the principle is the important thing here, and that is where the greatest need for improvement lies).

29. AIPM OrganisationGovernanceP4312 Management Roles & Responsibilities (Steering Committee / Owner / Sponsor) P339 Organisational Acceptance P326 MaturityP326 33

30. AIPM The bubble-chart now has the ‘project management acceptance as a profession’ project where it should be – high value being added, fewer negatives. The moral? We are getting individual criteria right; haven’t quite got ‘professional’ acceptance sewn up; are delivering some projects better but not in any uniform, measurable benefits way; and we MUST achieve better results in pursuing organisational acceptance and being relevant to departments and enterprises before we can say our profession has ‘arrived’.

31. ©CPMGroup 2003 – Not to be reproduced without express permission of author

32. AIPM State of the Nation A Review of the Status of Project Management in Australia – A Personal Perspective Colin Dobie Immediate Past President AIPM Chairman Asia Pacific Federation of Project Management